Graphics for Older Phones Slowing Down

Optimising or Depriving – Should Apple Throttle CPU Performance?

Group 7

In December 2017, Apple confirmed that they were deliberately throttling CPU on iPhones with degraded batteries, which means that the processing speed of old devices were slowed down. Although Apple clarified that the purpose of this action was to bring the best experience for customers by preventing unexpected shutting down, it was not convincing enough for the public. It is topical that whether or not Apple can choose for the customers between longer devices run and higher performance.

Argument over this ethical issue is made from two sides of view, some supports Apple while  others are against it. The response to the problem after debate is that, it is morally good for Apple to throttling CPU, but needs to be more transparent.

Apple is Optimising

From technical perspective, throttling CPU performance is an essential measure to prevent sudden shutting down and conforms to Kant theory. Due to data accumulation and natural aging of the lithium-ion battery in a smartphone, higher electrical power is required to complete the same operation than a new battery, which makes the device shutdown under peak operation to protect its electronic units. Throttling instantaneous peak is a technical agreement with a profession norm of electronic product manufacturing industry, in order to mitigate batteries ageing and smooth out overall performance. Therefore, focusing on the action itself, it is a good action based on Kant theory.

Moreover, CPU throttling through system updating might be the most effective, economical and wide-covered method. Compared with batteries replacement by recalling, logistical fees and extra capital investment is reduced for Apple and waiting time is saved for the customers. As the adoption rate of IOS 11 among iPhone users has reached 52% by November 2017, it was concluded to benefit more users than recalling. Therefore this measure conformed to utilitarianism by providing the greatest convenience to the largest number of users.

For engineers, code of conduct obliges their responsible behaviours. Following virtue ethics to be professional and objective, the prior concern of engineers is to make the life of device longer for customers and eliminates the likelihood of unexpected situations which may result in data loss. Furthermore, engineers are responsible to reduce the environmental contamination caused by the products. Since eventually all batteries will be disposed of and are quite hazardous wastes, prolonging the battery life is a useful way to lessen the adverse impact to the environment.

Moreover, the welfare and happiness brought to related industry are certainly a strong reason to throttle CPU. According to the utilitarianism criterion for good and bad, actions whose consequences lead to most values, including human pleasure, happiness, or welfare, should be chosen. In this case, properly shortening products lifetime would result in customers either replacing a new battery or purchasing a new iPhone more frequently. The acceleration of products consumption cycle provides more profits for shareholders and investment available for technology development of Apple. Additionally, technology and overall development of smartphone industry would be promoted in order to stay competent with Apple and more job opportunities can be created in related industries.

Finally, this measure is a good strategy on public relationship to solve technical problems without damaging reputation of the brand among customers. In this case, frequent shutting down is considered as a quality problem, updating IOS systems without informing the customer is a customer-oriented marketing strategy as faulty product would degrade the customer trust and further potentially decreases the selling quantity.

Apple is Depriving

Customers are using products that perform slowly due to this surreptitious behaviour from Apple. It hinders customers to acknowledge full product quality, which breaches the freedom principle. Meanwhile, the action also infringes the legislation rights to know. According to Customer Rights Act, customer should be offered with fair terms in a contract, and the information provided by Apple is clearly lack of transparency.

On the other hand, in terms of company, the integrated-processor speed of smartphone is still one of the main pursuits for buyers according to the market survey, and products such as iPhone SE is marked as the top 10 fastest in the business during 2016. By underclocking the devices to make battery last longer, Apple is also degrading own feature value in the smartphone races which can cause potential profits loss.

Technically speaking, based on Kant theory, Apple misapprehends the action itself as they should have developed an algorithm to distinguish battery health status rather than abruptly limiting all the CPU performance. Take iPhone 6 as an example, originally the device operates at 1400MHz frequency, but after throttling it can only perform 600MHz peak. This ultra conservative action may guarantee some users, who suffer from extreme battery wear to avoid emergencies, while the majority of the users are forced to accept unnecessary sacrifice on their phone performance without a second option. This occurs contradictions and not applicable to all people, which is against the Kant theory. To solve this controversy, ‘Battery health’ function is shown up in the latest iOS update, and users now can turn off the battery-throttling alternative. This feature proves Apple is capable of making more customer-friendly decision, however, Apple has not made further movements to fully allow devices to take measurements itself, such as throttling CPU when using high power consumption Apps or freezing background Apps when launching camera. In addition, since the current Apple battery generally fails to supply peak output, new competent batteries should be designed for recalling and replacing former devices, and further utilized in sequential products.

Two Charts Showing Before and After Throttling
Click to enlarge image

A large number of App developers also suffer huge loss from this action, especially those designated to run with high CPU performance. To provide better user experiences, they engaged in optimizing the performance of their products at the expense of a large amount of investment and time, while Apple made their efforts in vain, and even worse because the users blamed them for the unsatisfied experience. The slowing-down behaviour is clearly a hindrance towards the App developers which is against Freedom Principle.

55 thoughts on “Optimising or Depriving – Should Apple Throttle CPU Performance?

  1. A good article, which is well written and argued in a careful, balanced way. There is a good consideration of the various ethical theories and how they inform each side of the argument.
    However, can you consider Apple’s decision in terms of Care Ethics as well? This seems to me to be a good angle to explore.

  2. A great and professional article. I agree with the opinion that Apple’s throttling CPU behavior should be more transparent. However, the argument that it is morally good for Apple to throttling CPU is not strong enough. Besides, I cannot see the reason why the measure Apple uses is a customer-oriented marketing strategy. From my perspective, Apple’s throttling CPU behavior is a little subjective assumed and does not pay enough attention to the real feeling of the consumers. This also deprives consumers’ rights to choose. Thus, it can not really be customer-oriented marketing strategy. It will be great if the authors can explain their opinions a bit further.

  3. It is a professional article. It reflects the recent social phenomenon. As an Apple customer, the main reason why we choose Apple phone as daily communication equipment is due to its great performance and stable system (IOS). But due to the battery limitation for the old device, APPLE aimed to bring the best experience for customers to prevent unexpected shutting down by throttling down CPU. Normally, for the purpose of the company, this action hoped to make benefit for the customer. Oppositely, from the customer’s issue, it would be not satisfied by customers, due to the bad performance.

  4. I think APPLE should inform the customers to ensure that the customers know it. That means APPLE should let the customers make the decision instead of making the decision by the company. Therefore, I think that APPLE did wrong and they deprive the right of choice of customers. Because they just consider a portion of customers and ignore the other portion of them.

  5. Actually, apple did optimize the product, which mitigate batteries ageing and smooth out overall performance. However, this benefit comes with depriving, therefore, I think there is necessary for Apple to inform the customers the consequence. The customers own the product, so they should have the authority to decide whether need to throttle CPU preforming to protect their battery, as some customers may choose to maintain the smooth operation and they prefer to keep a good using experience. In other words, the action of Apple is more like a commercial strategy to increase the market for new product, which ignore the rights and interests of consumer, this is not fair to the consumer.

  6. This article is very professional. Apple is used to making choices for users, which is cool and lays a solid foundation for a good user experience. The only problem is that after the death of Steve Jobs, Apple no longer has the reality distortion field. So, when they make terrible choices, they simply solve this problem by giving more options to the users. Very Android… They should have come up with a better algorithm for that.

  7. Good and academic article, it provides quite neutral opinions on this CPU slowing down case. I think the behaviour of Apple can be relatively acceptable comparing the exploding from Samsung which is much more dangerous. Still, this misleading may challenge the boundary line of customers especially for those core Apple fans. Other options are more suitable as the article suggested.

  8. A nice article of Apple throttle CPU. Well, company aim to maximize shareholders interests. They must sell their products and improve user experience. Comparing auto power-off frequently, low CPU performance is acceptable.

  9. A professional article with many interesting ideals. I believe the monopoly positon of Intel CPU harm the development of the CPU industry and it is a quite good things to see apple developed new CPU with better performance. Evidence is reliable and the argument is logical. Convincing conclusion.

  10. All the lithium batteries will naturally age in a few years, making capacity and charging less efficient. APPLE may has a good original intention, hoping that when the battery performance decline, the device can still guarantee the stability and aviod random shut down. But the problem is that they didn’t tell the users the root cause of the problem in the first place. APPLE’s solution also makes many users mistankenly believe that, ‘my phone is too slow, so i should change it’, not ‘my phone is too slow, so i should change the battery’. Adding to the rumors that apple has deliberately restricted the performance of old devices to urge users to change new products, many users have expressed some anger. So even if APPLE’s starting point is good, it is their mistake that they didn’t give a clear explanation for the users, which leading to a wrong judgment.

  11. This article is ingeniously designed, and the academic argumentation process is professional and rigorous. The logic of this article is very meticulous and it is really a rare academic document.

  12. The author USES logical statements to describe the development of apple technology.
    Very attractive, for the battery issue to conduct in-depth research.

  13. Very good articles, using professional theory to discuss apple’s development.
    There are two different points of view for the author.
    At the same time, it provides some useful Suggestions about the future development measures.

  14. Very neutral article. Although from my perspective, the differences between 1400 or 600Hz CPU performance generally bothers little, while the battery life is much more an issue in daily life. Therefore, for quite a portion of customers this slowing-down behaviour will not be considered as detrimental to credits. However, like the article pointed out, the App developers suffer unnecessary barriers due to Apple’s irresponsible movements which should be treated seriously and criticized.

  15. That is an interesting article and balanced both sides of arguments. Personally, Apple throttle CPU is not a bad approach, if it does protect the battery life, since in daily life, people may have higher demand in a ‘long – life’ phone, rather than a ‘faster’ phone. However, it actually depends on the user and Apple had given a good solution that the users can choose whether they want to reduce the CPU of their phones. Meanwhile, the battery replacement statement currently provided by Apple also give the customers a better choice.

  16. It is a professional article with clear standpoints of both sides and I agree with the method of throttling. Honestly, I really don’t care about the processing speed but the problem of suddenly shutting down always made me feel irritated when I was chatting with someone. But Apple should pay more attention to the feelings and thoughts of the customers before taking any action. Moreover, throttling CPU can protect environment from battery contamination. Thus, I think Apple really made a good decision.

  17. I agree with the author’ view, it makes a critical and comprehensive statement from different perspectives. From a personal perspective, the loss of corporate social responsibility can result in a loss of trusts and customers.

  18. To be honest, I would not care about the CPU performance as I seldom play games or do heavy work on my iPhone. On the contrary, the stability is my top consideration. For now, the performance of the CPU is far higher than what we need, some of the performances are always wasting, why not just slow it down and provide a better stability? Also, throttling CPU can increase the battery life, which can increase the life for the iPhone, it is a smart move! However, Apple should let us know what they did, or let us choose if we want performance or better stability.

  19. I personally believe Apple is depriving. As we know, new iPhoneX came in market in November 2017 and was released in the tenth anniversary, which led to a new revolution in smart phone market.  Apparently, Apple hoped that their new products would attract more customers despite their relatively high prices. Just a month later, Apple was disclosed to slow down the performance of iPhone, which was definitely a hit to their faithful customers. I have not researched the number of people who use iPhoneX, but I saw many people still use old ones. Perhaps, Apple aimed to force the users to abandon the old iPhones. But they should not disappoint their customers. Moreover, decreasing the process speed might be a ‘good’ method since it prolongs the life of devices and only makes people feel a little bit inconvenient. Apart from throttling CPU, I think there should be other better solutions to prevent sudden shutting down. Anyway, as an iPhone user, I really hope processing speed of old devices can be improved.

  20. I think Apple is optimising. Because the current CPU performance is enough for running IOS 11 and accepted by most of the customers. With limited CPU performance, Apple can focus more on optimizing IOS system and updating hardware. The whole phone is like a dynamic system. The performance of CPU cannot dictate everything. The more customer gained from the whole system the better iPhone it is.

  21. A very informative article. It sounds a bit ironic now that iPhone SE used to be one of the fastest phones in the world. Framework update is usually considered as a method of optimising the performance of smartphones. However, as a result of IOS system update, Apple decided to throttle the CPU to force their customers to purchase new iPhones because of the iPhone slowdown. This action may violate the customer protection law and Apple issued an uncharacteristically strong apology. See these links for the following news.

  22. This article is great. Kant theory was mentioned several times. Although there is a link for the reference, the authors did not explain which specific parts were used in the article. Besides, Apple throttling CPU performance do lead to many consumers replace their old iPhones by new ones. The profit of Apple should be mentioned and explained objectively to make the conclusion more convincing.

  23. The decision made from Apple is obviously non-wise, not only it is costly for company to make up the mistake, but also customers’ trust has been severely damaged. Also personally, I think this direct CPU slowing-down is probably related to the degraded code quality of iOS system. Take iPhone X for example, under the latest iOS 11.4 device can operate quite fluently, while the battery consumption is prominently increased.

  24. The article is very relevant and important from the consumers point of view. Companies must leave the choice to the user and cannot take a stand that suits the company.

  25. A very comprehensive article which objectively presented the possible reasons from both sides. In my opinion, I think the key point of this problem should be the quality and the design of the Apple batteries, which is worse than expected. As what was described in this article, although mobile phone battery wear is unavoidable, enough tolerance should be made for their iPhone to be used normally for enough time. Especially when Apple’s competitors do not have this kind of problem with even better battery performance like higher volume or fast-charging technology. No wonder rumors always say that Apple uses the cheapest batteries but has one of the highest mobile phone prices in the market.

  26. Great article with critical thinking and relevant evidence which helps me re-thinking the point and the influence. My iPhone suffered the throttle effect and I do believe that it is not battery’s fault. I did not change my battery and just waited for the solution. Just few weeks ago IOS 11 solved the problem and I hope such things would not happen again.

  27. It is a really well-written article with clear points. Apple always tried to conceal the truth and their behavior really disappointed the customers. In my opinion, Apple should be more honest with their customers and announce their responsive measure in a more transparent way rather than be disclosed to the public. As a consumer, I would prefer choosing the more trustworthy and reliable company. Apple needs to pay more attention to feelings of the customer before making any decisions for them. Therefore, their action was depriving and unacceptable to me.

  28. It is a good and well-argued article. Actually, throttling CPU performance can avoid sudden shutdowns and prolong the life of ageing batteries, which is nothing wrong from the technical perspective. In this way, why did they not tell the truth to the public and what are they worrying about? Their behaviour is more like a commercial strategy to protect the reputation and maintain competitiveness in the smart phone market. Moreover, Apple neglected the thoughts of the customers and decided for them to slow down the old devices in order to make the life of batteries longer, which is not morally acceptable. Having large number of users all over the world, Apple really has to gain trust from their customers and look at problem in their perspectives.

  29. An interesting article. Critical thinking in both cons and pros. As a consumer, I suppose that Apple should give us fully control on our own phones’ performance. However, as an engineer, I do understand that there’s always a trade off in between performance and economy, which is the problem I’m facing in the industry as well. I guess the best solution to this is to find the best point to balance the performance and the economy.

  30. Impressive article!As l always choose to purchase the Apple products,it is good to know that this issue is actually exist rather than just a rumour. I’m shocked that when I heard this issue at the first place, however, if this is for maximising the life time of the device, I assume this somehow reasonable. We can let the market to decide if this is the right strategy for Apple.

  31. A very well written and interesting article on issues which, impact not only the current generation but the future generation as well. The article covers topics on the benefits of Apple throttle CPU performance as well as drawbacks. First of all, I think Apple throttle CPU performance without informing their customers was unacceptable. In this case, it forced the users of old devices to upgrade their devices, I have to admit it was tricky but smart way in business. However, it was despicable in the moral level. As an iPhone user, the limitation of CPU performance gave me a poor user experience, which quite annoying and slowing down my efficient of work.

  32. A logical and interesting article. The degrading of CPU performance is huge as indicated by the number. I personally believe that miximising its own economic profits is a factor that impels APPLE to make this actions. However, it is definitely not the most reasonable solution to battery degrading. People go for iPhones for their quick and smooth processing, while the huge decrease in CPU performance would ruin it. I’m glad that IOS 11 has provided a choice to the customers to solve this problem.

  33. A great article with well-organised structure. I believe Apple is depriving the rights of customers. Different customers may have different preference between performance and the life of batteries. Apple just made decisions for them without taking into account their ideas, which was unacceptable and would disappoint their users. Thus, I think Apple should give customers chances to decide by themselves. Finally, I agree that Apple need to take action in a transparent way.

  34. I agree with the opinions of this article. Apple throttled CPU performance to prolong the life of batteries can benefit most of users. As an iPhone user, the sudden shutdowns really annoyed me, and the stability is more important for me. But I think Apple should give us a much better solution. For example, the feature ‘Battery health’ is included in the latest system, which gives us more choices and we can decide by ourselves. Again, this is a very professional and well-balanced article.

  35. It is a well-organized artical, critically commenting on throttling of Apple from various perspectives.
    It is an information era, when most of the phone users are used to updating versions of electronic devices and applications. Though many users of iPhone may feel losing freedom about throttling because this means they are forced to purchase a new version iPhone or suffering a low-performing one, throttling is not contradictory with purchasing habits of phone users nowadays. Moreover, the higher-level performance that iPhone dose could help Apple stand out and keep leading place in the technology industry, keeping and attracting customers. In addition, the improvement of replacing batteries instead of recalling the whole iPhone does have positive effects on environment protection since fewer components need to be disposed, which is ethical. And the environmentally friendly perspective could be further discussed in this article.

  36. I think Apple made the right decision for the most of users, but they can do in a more transparent way. Since the customers have right to know and make a choice for their devices, Apple’s action directly breached their legal rights. Moreover, this surreptitious behaviour damaged the trust of the customers and pushed them to purchase new products due to slow performance to some extends. Finally, this is a well-argued and good article.

  37. This article successfully got rid of the expression guided by internet opinion. Actually, many problems were enlarged by internet because people who want to shout out something will talk on the internet. In this problem, people who against Apple had the largest voice on the internet, which created a feel that majority against Apple. However, as what was shown in the comment, many users do not care too much about this issue, even some of them feel thankful to Apple that Apple successfully stopped so called sudden shutting down. This is also an ethical problem that can Internet truly express normal people’s opinion?

  38. It is a interesting article with balanced debate two sides. Apple did not cause the sudden shutdown on purpose. They have properly and safely handled the sudden shut down due to natural battery degrading, although the public are not timely informed and explained to. Compared with Samsung which pushed their batteries to operate constantly in high power and leads to serious explosion, Apple is dealing with this problem safely. It is good as the enterprise have responsibility to keep the safety of their customers. However, there is also possibility that Apple reduces the CPU so much so that the users are engage to purchase new devices.

  39. This article is greatly-structured and shows the critical thinking. The lithium-ion batteries have a limited lifespan, so the ageing of batteries is inevitable. In the perspective of Apple, throttling CPU performance is actually a process of product optimisation, which is a good solution to avoid unexpected shutdowns. But Apple should allow their customers know it and explain why they decide to throttle CPU performance. Lack of transparency may cause unnecessary trust crisis and lawsuits. Therefore, I fully agree with the opinion of this article.

  40. It is a very good article. As an iPhone user, I think Apple made a correct decision for the most users since throttling CPU performance can avoid sudden shutdowns effectively. But I cannot accept that Apple took this action without telling the customers earlier and I felt really disappointed. As for Apple, it may be a commercial strategy to protect reputation and selling. I think it is main reason why Apple hid the truth from the public. Some news media said it was a kind of planned obsolescence to make customers change their devices more frequently. If it was true, I believe Apple would lose lots of customers. Apple should bring more benefits to the customers rather than considering how to obtain more profits from them. In my opinion, Apple should allow the public to know the truth and be more honest to their customers.

  41. This article equally analyzed the ethical thinking of both sides in this issue. As a reader who support the users before, I start to feel Apple’s action could be say reasonable after reading this article. Anything has its good side and bad side. The Internet mainly expressed the opinion from the one who feel uncomfortable of Apple, actually there may be more people who support Apple. Apple might be too harsh on throttling but the initial promote should be regarded as a good measure.

  42. I think this article is relatively objective. However, I still think Apple was trying to reduce the life time of iPhone, but it might not be the main purpose. As we all know, iPad has very long life time because its battery is huge. iPhone has smaller battery so it was greatly affected. On the other side, can we think the normal iPhone performance is additional? Apple will never admit that. What is a shame to Apple that its competitors normally do not have this problem. In brief, Apple is literately optimising but actually Apple was trying to fix the battery design problem.

  43. It is so lucky for iPhone that their battery does not have even more serious problem like catching fire. Apple was fighting with an unavoidable problem which became more serious because Apple left too less tolerance. It is hard to judge whether it was a quality problem because battery wear exists in almost all mobile phones. It is good that Apple was trying to optimise it, but their way was not clever enough. As that was mentioned in the article, Apple should have more modes to meet different situation, otherwise, many people will suffer from low frequency of CPU with a relatively healthy battery.

  44. The reduction on CPU performance is huge. Dropping from 1400 to 600 just to prevent the shutdown is a very abrasive solution. It is ironic as the selling point of iPhone 6 was its high processing speed and smooth performance, while it is sacrificing its most outstanding characteristic to deal with design problem. I believe that engineers from Apple are capable of designing a better algorithm to determine when and how much the CPU performance should be limited during the operation based on assessed batteries health status.

  45. This article is logically and reasonably written. Although battery regrading is a nature, frequent sudden shut down can surely be considered as a quality problem, such as a design default or battery quality problem. The most common way to deal with quality problems is the company to recall the devices, which would result in huge loss in Apple’s reputation, profits, as well as the stakeholder’s interests. Throttling CPU might not be the best way, but is the most effective, efficient and convenient solution to avoid the economic loss and reputation damage. It, in some degrees, improve the customers’ loyalty and trust to Apple.

  46. Interesting article. I support Apple because prevent sudden shutting down is more important than high performance. I personally experienced sudden shutting down before, it made me very upset because I want to make a phone call, but I cannot. I think Apple met the Kant Theory for normal persona. It is right because iPhone a made for normal users.

  47. Interesting read. From my perspective I reckon battery weighs more than occasional incidents but some may have other thoughts. I think it will be more acceptable for users if Apple would inform first although their movements seem to be optimizing. ‘The best customer experience is no options’ as one might say.

  48. Powerful phone or stable user experience? I want both. I do not think Apple is wrong, but they have not done their best as many other features in iOS. But because this problem was special, it became a topic to argue. Actually nowadays, technical companies like Apple, Google and Amazon always carry out devices and technologies which is not mature enough. Users have become testers. This is also an ethical problem to be taken care of.

  49. It is a really good article that analysed both sides of ethical issue in detail. The ethical framework is well developed to reflect this problem. I agree with the judgement that throttling CPU performance is a good solution but Apple should make it in a more open way. The customers have the right to acknowledge the quality of their device and make their own decisions. Moreover, I think Apple should provide more mature solution not just throttling all the CPU performance. The feature ‘battery health’ included in the latest system allowed the customers to choose based on their requirement, which is a much better solution and bring better experience to the customers.

  50. A controversial topic is well-argued in this blog and two sides of points are given in a balanced weight. As the batteries ageing, the sudden shutdowns occurred more frequently and made the using of iPhones very inconvenient and troublesome. I would say throttling CPU performance is considered as one of the most effective methods to eliminate this unexpected situation. Thus, Apple did optimise their products and improve the quality. However, they should inform the customers about the taken action rather than say nothing.

  51. What is quite interesting that Apple engineers are actual iPhone users, too. What will they think when they found the phone had been slowed down? Not all Apple engineers change iPhone each year. Apple engineers may apply the Kant Theory they accepted to all users. In my opinion, this thing cannot be easily judged by some specific single ethic theory. Multiple reason should be considered.

  52. A well balanced article which is objective. This article provided decent analysis of the ethical thought of Apple. In my opinion, Apple’s problem was Apple do not care about Kant Theory, they believed that what they did was to bring real pleasure to users but actually not. In addition, it was real that I think Apple did not respect the freedom principle because as a user although I think it was okey for Apple to do that, Apple had not make me happy enough.

  53. Very interesting topic and greatly structured article. As an Apple user, sudden shutdowns really affect my experience of using iPhone. If throttling CPU performance can solve this problem, I think Apple did the right thing. As mentioned in the article, Apple did not inform the customers about this measure and just chose for them, which was not morally good. In my perspective, Apple should take into account the customers’ ideas and inform the public about the action they chose, which are more likely to be accepted by the customers.

  54. If Apple decides to recall the iPhones, it is good for the users who can take this advantage. However, for those who have their devices not under guarantee any more or not in the region that is convenient to sent their phones to Apple, they would keep suffering the sudden shut down, which is not fair. It’s would significantly reduce the business reputation of Apple and customer loyalty. Moreover, how can Apple deal with the discarded batteries? Although this amount of batteries might not be comparable to the total amount of batteries discarded by the smartphone industry every year, it is still a unnecessary damage to the environment. It is a trade-off.

  55. A good article with clear points. I believe Apple should concentrate more on the opinions of their customers instead of deciding for them directly. Some customers may prefer high performance rather than slow processing speed. Furthermore, Apple should be more transparent and let the customers know all the necessary information. My opinion is that Apple should leave choices for the customers and allow them to decide based on their preference.

Leave a Reply