Apple people simply don't care. They know Apple's "late." (Inasmuch as someone else has done a similar thing, or used a similar piece of tech "first".) Because Apple is almost always late.

Late to touch. Late to smartphones. Late to fingerprint readers. Late to face identification. Late to attention detection. Late to wireless charging. Late to big screens. Late to music streaming. Late to video services. Late to the TV. Late to the wrist. Late to the wireless headphones. etc.

Now add a distinction between IAPs for consumables vs features vs content.

They can throttle the chip to what the battery can deliver or it will crash. Maybe Apple's more conservative on the throttling, and some amount of performance could still be achieved without a crash, but there's zero chance Apple's putting a "make my phone unstable" switch in Settings.

Particularly, when as the throttling is severe (more than 25% or so) and when the user is encountering it with any frequency.

People switch to the iPhone because of their longer usable life compared to the competition. People pay more for old iPhones compared to the competition because of their longer usable life. Not only is it not in Apple's interest to make self-destructing phones, to even accuse them of that requires ignoring the entire history of iPhone adoption and resale value.

Further, there is no "one year" for batteries. Batteries with more charge cycles degrade faster. Batteries that push peak performance more often degrade faster. Batteries that spend time in extreme heat and cold degrade faster. Because of this, a simple anecdote of "throttling after a year" means even less than usual.

No-one has data on how much throttling is going on, but Apple. The best proxy we have is the aggregate purchasing decisions of people who had iPhones, and the prices of used iPhones. And people with iPhones overwhelmingly keep buying iPhones. And the prices of used iPhones aren't going anywhere. This "Apple makes self-destructing phones" theory needs a rest.

And frankly now that sudden shutdown isn't a thing, I don't think it matters much. Apple just has to communicate the situation better when processor throttling reaches severe states.

For Mb vs MB vs MiB alone we've lost any and all credibility.

Even if they keep their literal word and don't sell your actual history, and you use SSL so they can't see specific content, they can certainly make money by identifying traffic profiles by domains/times/frequencies/etc.

And those leaks were very transparently beneficial to a person/group who are also going to benefit from this one.

I don't trust the CIA at all. But I don't trust Wikileaks either. I see way too many self-described "skeptical" types who aren't approaching any of this with any shred of skepticism.

Facebook barely existed 10 years ago. And it wasn't until maybe the last five years that it was recognized as a competitor to Google.

Compare that to Google Fiber's 7 year slog.

It would've been the middle ground. Not just streaming, but not as hardcore as an XBox/PS4 (which weren't $250 when the AppleTV launched.)

The big mis-step of the 4th gen AppleTV is that they didn't pick any direction for it. It's a bit like the first-gen Watch. They just threw a bunch of crap at the wall and expected the early adopters to sift through it.

1. Because the mindset of work > leisure is rewarded in the U.S., so wealthier people aren't choosing work because they're wealthier, they're wealthier because they choose work.

2. Because they have more leverage not only in how much they work, but in what work they do. If you draw a stark line between your job and what you enjoy, naturally you'll want to minimize that work and maximize your leisure. But if you actually enjoy your job...

  1. It wasn't actually happening/a problem. 
     (It's hippy nonsense. [insert sarcastic comment about saving butterflies])
  2. It was happening, but it was natural, not caused by human activity 
     (The ozone hole grows and shrinks naturally throughout the year! And its been bigger and smaller in the past!)
  3. It was happening, caused by human activity, but there wasn't anything we could do about it 
     (We can't force the other countries to change, and if they won't change it'll keep growing anyway!)

Even the "equivalent replacements" for CFCs were widely regarded as overpriced and far worse at the time. (I still hear people bemoan the loss of freon AC to this day.) It's not so different from solar/wind vs fossil fuels.

(e.g. people are going to buy an Echo or a Dropcam long before they refit their house for smart switches/outlets/bulbs/appliances.)

Having each and every widget doing its own network and software stack is just a mess. Nevermind having to power all these gadgets.

There's very little reason to have more than one base in a room, that could handle all the non-switch/non-outlet duties. (cameras, air quality sensors, motion sensors, mics and speakers for echo-type interaction, tv input, etc.)

If all those features were just modules that stacked on top of a base (and could be swapped independently), you'd really have something.

As usual: humanity's primary challenge is humanity.

Let's face it: the kind of people who only look at your photos when they're very convenient to look at aren't interested to begin with. Nothing of value is being lost.

Technical people like to pretend it's the easiest thing in the world to "know" how much computer someone needs and to buy it. But if you're non-technical, all you hear is technical people saying "trust me". Which is precisely the same thing Apple is saying.

And, yes, we show them lower sticker prices. But Apple has a far better track record of delivering customer satisfaction than technical people recommending beige boxes. So, for anyone with the money, why in the world would they care for two seconds about "too much computer"?

"Aww shucks. I bought too much computer and loved it, instead of listening to the geeks, getting just enough, and hating it."