If there’s one thing I can’t tolerate in technology, it’s dishonesty from the brands, products, and services that we love. Users, and more aptly people, are the absolute cornerstone of any exciting technological development, and deception of them to fuel sales or corporate influence is unforgivable. These exacting standards, thus, mandate adherence from any enterprise, up-and-coming startup to industry titan – and whenever they are violated, everyone involved must be held accountable. I’m interested to discuss Apple’s recent actions, and why they might be the most important and confusing ones yet. Apple has always been a company I’ve deeply admired; they annually create trends that influence an entire industry, without using cheap tricks or sales gimmicks to convince consumers. Indeed, they also refrain from bashful competitive advertising which I’ve never been fan of. In other words, Apple underscores the beauty behind letting a great product speak for itself. Needless to say, when they recently admitted to using software updates to throttle older iPhones, I was left confused, disappointed, and a little lost as to where to place my support in the now eight class action lawsuits against them.

Complaints against Apple regarding planned obsolescence have roamed the archives of technology publications for years, but the company has maintained a vehement denial of any attempt to slow older devices – until now. Under the shroud of several software updates, Apple admitted to such actions, in their defense, to prevent sporadic crashes during processor intensive tasks. Lithium-ion batteries degrade in current output and general performance over time, and to “deliver the best experience for customers,” Apple decided underclock older iPhones that could negatively respond to poor battery conditions (as evidenced in the graphs below). Understandably, this seems like a very valid concern – batteries are notorious for dramatically worsening with age, and Apple’s goal was to prevent freezes or sudden shutdowns for affected phones.

iPhone 6S Kernel Density to Map Performance Peaks

iPhone 7 Kernel Density to Map Performance Peaks

Granted, to an audience of critical users that have previously brought pleas of slower iPhones to the surface, Apple’s statement seems like nothing more than a clever evasion from what is a blatant violation of consumer trust. Eight lawsuits, filed both in the US and abroad, echo this sentiment exactly; litigators argue that Apple’s decision to manipulate performance was never agreed upon or explicitly mentioned to users. In what seems to be a gambit to sell newer iPhones under the guise of protecting against technical battery issues, consumers are not happy regarding Apple’s evident lack of transparency.

In the last several years, smartphones have become deep extensions of our personal and professional lives, and when the performance of such devices comes into question, users deserve a full debrief. In many ways, I completely agree with Apple’s actions – CPU throttling is an important and effective measure against battery degradation. The lack of any informative updates, however, delineates a clear disregard for consumer transparency, which users can’t possibly view with anything other than suspicion.

I strongly believe that users should impugn the practices of technology giants in such circumstances, and the occasional surmising of company behavior is inevitable. Should Apple have published a detailed blog post with data-backed reasoning, or sent an e-mail to users with recurring battery issues, then much of the backlash, bitter litigation, and general spread of misinformation could have been avoided. In an age where censorship, data, and technology has come to pervade nearly every aspect of our lives, communication and transparency are major priorities, ones which must be imposed on even the most influential of enterprises. It’s clear that lessons are to be learned, not only by companies in treating their customers as equals, but also by users in trusting the good intentions of such providers.