Talk:Batterygate

Inaccurate weasel word in opening

“supposedly in order to prolong their battery life”
The update did just that; by reducing the speed of the handful of outdated devices, Apple increased the use time of the devices. It is equally documented that the reduced performance did as much. Batterygate is not that the performance was reduced to extend use time; but rather, that they did not make it clear to users what they did. Lostinlodos (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Whatev. 2603:6013:9B40:683:406B:AFB4:18F0:E416 (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Weight lift

Greetings, all. The lead section of the article seems overly weighted towards the view that Apple's responsibility is still alleged, unproven, and possibly untrue. This runs directly against the hardest possible evidence, i.e. Apple's own acknowledgement of what amounts to malpractice. The lead section devotes only a couple of sentences to that, the most important fact in the case. We should be fixing this gross and biased imbalance a.s.a.p. Suggestions? -The Gnome (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this. The second paragraph features some particularly bad weasel wording. I don't have anything on my plate so I'll attempt writing a new lead sometime before the end of the week. I'm thinking I'll just remove the weasel-worded stuff (seems like the author's own claims anyhow) and focus more on summarizing the facts from the court cases Apple was involved in. KikiFur (talk) 19:57, 27 August 2026 (UTC)