I still keep my old iPad mini in the drawer next to my desk. It’s not damaged, cracked, or broken, but after the iOS 9 update, it became so slow that using it was like trying to stir honey with a straw. I’m not the only one who has experienced that.
Users continue to express similar frustrations in forums, YouTube channels, and comment threads: after certain updates, older Apple devices that used to function flawlessly start to feel purposefully impaired. Apps malfunction. Syncing stops being dependable. Essential functions disappear. It’s a pattern that seems especially out of place for a business that takes pride in seamless integration.
| Key Detail | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Main Concern | Apple is accused of encouraging users to abandon older devices through app restrictions, software slowdowns, and service discontinuations. |
| Developer Impact | New App Store policies require apps to use updated SDKs, limiting compatibility with older iOS versions. |
| User Effect | Devices that still function physically are losing access to apps, updates, and services like iCloud or FaceTime. |
| Past Controversy | Apple’s 2017 “Batterygate” revealed intentional slowdowns on older phones, citing battery aging. |
| Apple’s Position | Apple defends these changes as necessary for privacy, security, and performance enhancements. |
| Broader Concern | These patterns suggest “planned obsolescence,” raising concerns about sustainability and consumer fairness. |
| Source | Public reports, developer policies, past legal admissions, and firsthand user experiences. |
Critics contend that this is intentional rather than coincidental. They cite a number of recent adjustments made by Apple that, taken as a whole, encourage consumers to switch to newer hardware, even if their older devices are still in good working order.
Midway through 2025, Apple implemented more stringent App Store regulations, which was one particularly significant shift. The most recent SDKs, which only support the most recent versions of iOS, are now required for developers to build and update their apps. On paper, it’s a call for creativity. This effectively prevents millions of users with marginally older devices from receiving app updates in the future.
This is where users start to get frustrated—not because they want their 2016 iPhone to run the newest augmented reality app, but rather because they want their banking app to work and Spotify to open. And it’s becoming less and less certain.
Apple has consistently insisted that security and privacy are at the heart of these changes. According to the company, updating the SDK framework gives users access to newer, more potent features and shields them from emerging threats. That might be accurate. However, it is hard to overlook the impact on end users, particularly those who are unable or unwilling to upgrade every two years.
A definite precedent was established by the notorious “Batterygate” incident in 2017. Apple acknowledged that in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns, older iPhones with deteriorating batteries were slowed down. Later, the business offered discounted battery replacements and expressed regret. However, the damage was already done for many users. There had been a breach of trust. It was no longer a conspiracy theory that performance degradation could be a deliberate tactic.
Reports of forced obsolescence have increased since then. In order to comply with Apple’s changing requirements, developers—some reluctantly—drop support for older devices. Users are stuck with devices that are digitally marginalized but function flawlessly on a hardware level, particularly in lower-income areas.
The true source of tension is not only what malfunctions, but also how subtly it occurs. Apple rarely announces the end of support. There isn’t a grace period or countdown clock. A service simply vanishes. There is no longer an app update available. A phone that was once dependable becomes inconveniently unreliable.
This presents a frustrating dilemma for many users: either update the device and run the risk of slow performance, or wait and watch vital services disappear. Whether you’re ready or not, the outcome frequently feels like being guided toward the Apple Store.
Apple isn’t the only company doing this, to be fair. The larger tech ecosystem has long included planned obsolescence. However, Apple’s premium pricing and closely regulated ecosystem make the impact seem more pronounced. In less than five years, a $1,000 phone may become virtually unsupported.
It could be argued that Apple deserves praise for giving platform security and privacy top priority. However, when updates start damaging devices more frequently than they are protecting them, that argument becomes weaker. especially when there are no options for opting out or rolling back those updates.
Developers and tech analysts are therefore increasingly demanding longer-term support policies and greater transparency. Apple may need to strike a balance between its drive for technological advancement and more robust accommodations for its legacy users if it hopes to maintain its reputation for quality.
This also brings up more general sustainability-related issues. Apple has made audacious public promises about its commitment to environmental responsibility, including recycled materials, reduced packaging, and carbon neutrality. But using software alone to make millions of still-usable devices obsolete runs counter to those objectives.
Apple runs the risk of creating a product line that is robust in terms of materials but brittle in terms of digital capabilities by making devices more reliant on software access than hardware durability. Many users are now realizing the irony that disconnection, rather than damage, renders a perfectly functional iPhone useless.
This type of cutoff wasn’t just inconvenient during the pandemic, when many people relied on outdated technology for social interaction, work, and remote learning. It was also destabilizing. Additionally, losing software support is a harsh stop rather than a gentle prod toward the future for people on fixed incomes or in regions of the world where newer models are unaffordable.
Offering innovation and imposing it are two different things for a company that is known for telling consumers it knows “what’s best.” It is one thing to encourage users to embrace new features. It’s quite another to force them to upgrade by removing essential features.
Apple has the skills and resources to provide both: stability for those who would rather stay put and advancement for those who are looking for it. However, doing so would entail allowing users to make those decisions independently, free from digital encroachment.
There is still time to change direction. With more transparent software policy, modular updates, and more defined timelines, Apple could develop a system that is both incredibly efficient and truly respectful of customer choice.
