A recent video disseminated on the platform X on November 10, 2026, has reignited longstanding allegations suggesting that Apple intentionally reduced the performance of older iPhones to stimulate customer upgrades.
A woman purporting to be a former software engineer at Apple claims that the company implemented malware on older devices with each new phone launch.
However, the video fails to provide verification of her identity, her professional background, or substantiation for her assertions.
This allegation echoes the infamous Batterygate scandal of 2017, wherein Apple admitted to employing software methods that managed the performance of specific older iPhone models.
The matter continues to be scrutinized within legal frameworks in the UK, as demonstrated by a ruling from the Competition Appeal Tribunal in March 2026, which permitted segments of a consumer lawsuit against Apple to advance.
The iPhone Performance Controversy: Beyond Simple Software Updates
Batterygate surfaced when iPhone users began to notice a drop in processing speeds following software updates on older devices.
In response, Apple clarified that it had introduced a performance management feature via iOS 10.2.1, launched on January 23, 2017, aimed at mitigating unexpected shutdowns linked to the deterioration of lithium-ion batteries.
As batteries age, their capacity to deliver optimal power diminishes. To address this, Apple’s software was designed to modify processor performance under specific conditions, which could potentially impact app loading times and the overall operational fluidity of certain devices.
Former software engineer at Apple is whistleblowing
She says whenever Apple launches a new phone, they would push an update to older iPhones with malware to slow them down. This pushes people to upgrade
“I used to be a software engineer at Apple, and with every new phone that… pic.twitter.com/Uk1UA1RYaa
— Deep Leaks (@DeepLeaksHQ) November 9, 2026
Initially, Apple did not disclose how this performance management feature might impact device performance.
It was not until December 28, 2017, that the company publicly addressed these concerns, elaborating on its battery management strategies and refuting any claims of deliberate slowdowns to compel upgrades.
The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority subsequently investigated whether consumers had been adequately informed about these changes.
In May 2019, Apple consented to enhance the clarity of its information regarding battery health and performance management.
Nevertheless, this regulatory outcome did not ascertain that the company had deployed malware as a means to push upgrades.
2026 Court Ruling Preserves the Batterygate Legal Battle
In March 2026, the legal dispute took an important turn when the Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled in the case of Gutmann v Apple Inc [2026] CAT 20, brought forth by consumer advocate Justin Gutmann, which scrutinized Apple’s performance management practices on select older iPhones.
Apple sought to have the entire lawsuit dismissed; however, the tribunal permitted various claims to progress.
It concluded that the alleged inadequacies in customer notifications regarding performance management could serve as a basis for a competition law complaint, though it did not definitively assert that Apple had breached any laws.
The tribunal also delineated the case’s scope, discarding certain claims related to software installations occurring prior to consumer use and those post-March 2018, when iOS 11.3 granted users augmented authority over performance management.
The ongoing proceedings underscore crucial questions of transparency and consumer agency, rather than indictments of Apple installing malware to induce upgrades.
Former Apple Engineer’s Claims Lack Substantiation
In the widely circulated video, the woman asserts that older devices were intentionally compromised with each new model’s release.
She characterizes the purported software as malware, alleging it was designed to create a perception of malfunction among customers.
However, the video does not reveal her identity, lacks any corroborating evidence of her employment, and fails to specify the software allegedly implicated.
Moreover, it does not include any internal communications, source code, technical assessments, or documentation linking updates to new iPhone releases.
The claim that Apple’s actions have been judicially substantiated is also misleading; while the 2026 tribunal ruling permits some elements of the Batterygate claim to progress, it does not verify that Apple clandestinely infected older devices.
As it stands, the woman’s identity and assertions remain unvalidated. Apple maintains that its performance management measure is intended to forestall sudden shutdowns due to battery degradation, yet there is no independent verification of intentional malware deployment on older iPhones to compel upgrades.
Source link: Techtimes.co.uk.
