Might you or someone else be able to offer an explanation for this? -- the performance boost of iOS 12 specifically targeted most legacy of iPhones.
I mean, the popular posit on the forum is that of "Planned Obsolescence" - which should have meant that Apple knee capped the 5S and SE, locking them onto iOS 11. Then extolled the superiority of iOS 12, allowing others to show the performance advantage of moving to new phone hardware. But they didn't. Instead, Apple kicked out the literal tentpole of Planned Obsolescence. Seemingly these are 'good will' actions that Apple took in wake of "ThrottleGate" but will cost them 100's of -B-illions of dollars. Not to mention that so many got 'genuine apple' battery replacements at an unbeatable price. Extending legacy phone useage even further. And even if you exclude the 5S and SE from iOS 13 you've only just locked them to an excellent OS version. Not to mention that iOS 12 improved performance across all iPhones.
Seriously, Apple could have just claimed mea culpa, offered a lame excuse, provided the toggle, locked the 5S and SE to iOS 11, and continued on with the clandestine operation of Planned Obsolescence.…
IMO -- These aren't the actions of a company that considers its customers the 'lol sheeple' that the rest of the likes of pundits, Louis Rossman, this forum, fandroids, or genuine Apple critics consider them to be. But, I don't know if they're entirely benevolent or genuine, either. They just seem exceedingly erratic.
Perhaps Apple believe that the way to maximize profits over the long term is to satisfy their customers.
Seriously, how many of the planned obsolescence theorists here believe that Apple would sell
more new phones by degrading the user experience on current phones?
What real-life person would actually think, “I’ve had this iPhone only two years, and already I’m starting to hate using it! I can’t wait to buy another so I can look forward to reliving this aggravation in another year or two!”
Sure, there are plenty of companies that do anything they can to maximize short-term profits, even at the expense of poisoning their own wells. Sometimes these are companies who genuinely care about their customers but don’t have much cash on hand and are afraid of being taken over, and are trying to build their reserves as quickly as possible, sacrificing customer satisfaction in the short term in the desperate hope of long term respite.
Often, they’re companies owned by shareholders looking a quick buck, run by executives whose bonuses are tied to maximizing quarterly profits and who are quite happy to strip-mine their company of its goodwill in order to bail out with the most heavily gold-laden parachute they can before their company sinks beneath the waves. (How’s
that for mixing metaphors!)
Humor aside, Apple is in neither of those positions. It’s been years since they had the slightest fear of a hostile takeover or of going under, and Apple’s shareholders have been overwhelmingly supportive of Apple’s current management.
There’s a very strong case to be made that Apple got to be the world’s most profitable company by taking extraordinary pains to give their customers a great experience (not that they always succeed, of course, and when they fall short, we
MacRumors readers can be counted upon to point out their shortcomings), and that the customer loyalty Apple have built up over many years as a result is a large part of Apple’s success.
Apple may simply believe that making their customers happy with their
current Apple products is
more likely to make them want to buy new or upgraded Apple products in the future.