Those situations are exactly what I need Turbo Boost for — why would I want to trade computer responsiveness for dubious battery improvements? You are also not taking into account that a slower CPU will take longer to perform the task, which means spending more time outside of low-energy state, which could potentially negate any battery improvement — of course all subject to particular context and usage.
Are you referring to the same examples I listed, i.e. browsing, text-editing and the like? Because in these situations, I really don't see Turbo Boost making such a big difference. I actually tried out this tool for a few hours since, and I really didn't notice any difference in responsiveness when browsing the web, downloading some large files, sorting through some stuff in Finder, or writing a bit in Pages. Do the typed letters come out faster with Turbo Boost? Do websites load noticeably faster or do documents open noticeable faster with it? Well, maybe a
big document might, I dunno, but I didn't notice any difference in responsiveness with the stuff I did. You don't seem to take into account that the CPU usually only activates Turbo Boost when it actually
needs it – otherwise, it will oftentimes run far below base frequency anyway to be more efficient.
It's a bit funny that you put the adjective "dubious" in front of battery improvement but not in front of "responsiveness" when many people would have the polar opposite reaction. On many standard, non-demanding everyday tasks that barely make the CPU hit base frequency anyway, so the difference in responsiveness, if there is any, won't be all that noticeable to a great deal of people. But if the battery lasts me an hour longer than it otherwise would? That's a real, tangible, easily measurable benefit that can easily make a difference to some people, I'm not sure what's so dubious about it. (And no, I haven't personally done any testing on that yet, so take the "hour" with a grain of salt, but for many people including OP, it does seem to improve battery life, by varying amounts.)
And cool? What do you people want with all this "running cool" business? Why should I care if my average CPU temperature is 40 degrees or 50 degrees?
Well for one, a cooler computer generally also means a
quieter computer, as the fan speeds are directly dependent on the internal temperatures of your MacBook. If you've ever had the fans of your laptop spin up in a quiet library or lecture hall or while chatting with a group of friends or any situation like that, then you might know how awkward that can be. I mean, even when just sitting at home and trying to focus on a task at hand, having your fans make some noise can be interruptive to what you do. Having your laptop remain cooler means that your fans will generally spin up less (or not to an audible amount at all).
Also, I can see why it matters to people who live in very hot regions. If your outside temperature is 35°C or above and you are sitting in a refreshingly cool room, then you probably want your MBP to heat it up as slow as possible.
Personally I'm not bothered that much by the internal temperatures of my MacBook, but that doesn't mean that other people don't have valid reasons to be concerned about it. Let's not dismiss other people's worries or use cases just because they don't apply to us.
BTW, yes, I think that "battery mode" on the iOS is different. Not only a working phone is more important than a working laptop, but it also kicks in automatically when your battery is getting low.
Not sure where you are getting that from that a working phone is more important than a working laptop, not only does this vary from person to person, but a laptop is the device that many people do their work on, so for many of them it's equally if not more important than a working phone.
Also the disabling/re-enabling of turbo boost can kick in automatically aswell with OP's app (even with a custom-set battery percentage), so that point is moot.
I mean, I see your point about about the restrictions on customizability in things like that, but that is simply a divisive topic and many people have different views and desires in this regard, and why not let them have that customizability if they want it? The fact that there are so little customization settings for energy-efficiency (past when the screen turns off and the like) shows that Apple sees it similar to you and wants users not to bother with such settings, but that doesn't mean it's the best solution for everyone. In fact the low power mode hasn't been around for
that long either in the iPhone's history, yet it was generally very positively received when it launched. More choice to the user – what's so bad about that? If you don't need it, just don't use it, and it won't affect you.
The fact that tools like OPs are so well-received among a part of the users base shows that many people would rather have more granular and precise control about when their computer uses its big cannons and when it doesn't.
You don't have to use this tool if you don't like it, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who are actively getting a longer battery life or other improvements from it in situations where the additional performance just doesn't make a difference.
This would be very very easy for them.
