They're not even the only consumable part anyway.
>Batteries ... are already easily replaceable
Is this[1] what easy looks like?
Batteries tend to degrade to about 85% quickly and then spend a long time at that capacity. Couldn't tell you why.
A USB battery is a more useful thing to have, for instance because you don't have to turn off the phone to use it.
> Is this[1] what easy looks like?
For something you'd do every 2-3 years, sure. He's put in some extra steps in that video I think.
So, "Apple killed battery swappability" is a fair thing to say.
Now the reason is valid and should have been a toggle from the get go but they still told us they were not doing it when they were.
>"In March, Apple agreed to pay up to $500 million to settle claims of intentionally slowing down older phones."
They got slapped on the wrist. This resulted in them making the batteries slightly easier to replace, but their batteries are still impossible to replace by the average iPhone owner.
If it helps I believe the EU just made it illegal two days ago to release updates that make battery life worse. But I could've confused some of the details there.
They just implemented iOS 7 with much more compute requirements, so only newer phones were able to run it smoothly. The progress of mobile CPUs these old days was crazy, so I don't really complain about it, it was inevitable.
It seems like A would have been whistleblown by now, and B would be idiotic for them to do on purpose since it would make their new devices unnecessarily slow too.
My opinion is basically B but without malice, it's just that they're obsessed with tons of animation and other eye candy, and added a lot of bloat in those years in general, rushing code out the door out of a desire to hit iOS release dates and the synchronized iPhone release dates they used to have.
Yes, they did in fact prove that. That's why Apple had to pay $500 million dollars to settle, because they got caught doing shady shit.
It was still the correct course of action, and obviously not done maliciously -- a phone that was so slow it was annoying to use, and a phone that reboots 10x a day are equally 'incentive' to buy a new phone, so I fail to see how the throttling benefited Apple one bit.
In fact, I'd say the unreliable rebooting one would have provided stronger incentive to replace it vs. a slow one.