If Steve Jobs were Still Alive: Would He Allow Slowing Down Older iPhones?

Would Steve Jobs, if he were still alive, have allowed Apple to slow down older iPhones in the same manner as they are doing now? This question brings to light a complex interplay of engineering, user experience, and business strategy, as well as the nuanced personality of the late tech visionary. Let’s delve into the possibilities and historical context.

Engineering and User Experience

The decision to throttle older iPhones’ performance when facing software compatibility issues is a strategic trade-off between user experience and hardware limitations. If Steve Jobs were to make this decision today, would he still choose to slow down the older devices?

If we consider Apple's current actions as two bad choices, and the only alternative being the device shutting down intermittently, then yes, he would likely choose the lesser of two evils. Throttling the device is still better than it suddenly crashing during an emergency call, for example. This decision, however, comes with its own set of user dissatisfaction.

Steve Jobs’ Actions and Personality

Steve Jobs was known for his strong personality and sometimes brash decisions. He might have made different choices based on his own character. In a scenario where Apple is asked to slow down the phones, Jobs might have said, “Forget the old phones, the future is new phones. If someone’s old phone crashes occasionally, they will come to the Apple store and we can replace the battery or sell them a new phone. Stop spending time on it.”

On the other hand, Jobs was always looking for solutions. If the alternative to throttling was an intermittent shutdown, he might have chosen to implement a more subtle approach, like reducing the phone's performance when it detects under-voltage. However, he would likely not have chosen to inform users about this slower performance, considering user dissatisfaction a major challenge.

Apple’s Current Approach and User Perception

Apple has faced significant backlash for not informing users about the battery throttling. If users were constantly informed about the reduced performance due to battery issues, they might be less upset. For instance, a message like: “In the last 24 hours, your battery was unable to provide enough power, so the phone ran slower for a total of 6.3 seconds. You may want to get a replacement battery,” could have helped manage user expectations and reduce their frustration.

Nevertheless, it is crucial to understand that Apple did not slow down their mobile phones. They updated their mobile phones with the latest version of iOS, which requires hardware capable of running the software without any problems. The issue arises with older iPhones, like the iPhone 7 and earlier models, which lack the necessary hardware. Their batteries struggle to keep up with the newer software demands, leading to higher battery consumption and slower performance.

It's important to consider Steve Jobs’ philosophy. He was deeply committed to preventing critical failures, such as a phone shutting down during an emergency call. Therefore, if faced with the decision to throttle older iPhones, he would likely prioritize the user’s safety and the overall system’s stability over the immediate user experience.

Conclusion

The question of Steve Jobs’ approach to older iPhone maintenance is multifaceted. It involves a balance between user satisfaction, technological capabilities, and safety. While we can speculate on his actions, the current approach taken by Apple reflects a strategic decision that, while not ideal, aims to mitigate critical issues and ensure user safety.