This was done to keep the device from restarting in scenarios where degraded batteries were unable to supply enough power. It wasn't a nefarious scheme to get users to upgrade.
> This performance management works by looking at a combination of the device temperature, battery state of charge, and battery impedance. Only if these variables require it, iOS will dynamically manage the maximum performance of some system components, such as the CPU and GPU, in order to prevent unexpected shutdowns.
b) At any rate, “Apple deceitfully handicapped older products to cover up a more serious (but fixable) flaw, knowingly pushing customers into unnecessary upgrades” is really not any better than “Apple deceitfully handicapped older devices to push consumers into unnecessary upgrades.”
In this specific case Apple and Samsung have been proven dishonest and manipulative, and they have a far stronger legal/financial incentive to lie than separate groups of prosecutors in the US and many separate EU member states. I also find a conspiracy internal to Apple/Samsung much more plausible than a conspiracy across attorneys general from 34 US states.
Only trusting viewpoints that agree with your personal biases isn't enlightened, either.
> "In this specific case Apple and Samsung have been proven dishonest and manipulative"
is an unvarnished falsehood. The throttling wasn't across the board, it was triggered in specific circumstances related to the state of the battery. There was never any evidence that this was a scheme to defraud customers.