Yes, it's real and it's plain funny that you discredit simple facts in a case as obvious and with as many data points as Apple.
From the 2005 iPods settlement [0], to the 113 Mio USD Batterygate [1], to Flexgate [2] where Apple only escaped settlement due to plausible deniability.
To quote from Batterygate:
> Apple has agreed to pay millions of dollars to 34 states over its controversial previous practice of deliberately slowing down older iPhones to extend their battery life.
> [...]
> Many believed it was an effort to encourage users to buy new iPhones.
I agree on all your "PS" points, where we seem to differ is that reading is a virtue and not knowing something because you haven't heard of it doesn't constitute a conspiracy theory.
These obviously are’t planned obsolescence though.
Flexgate is a manufacturing error, that they handled in a consumer hostile way
Batterygate, was an arguably misguided way to support outdated models - prioritising one goal (battery life) over another (speed)
The iPod thing I’ll admit I know nothing about.
It sounds like, for you, planned obsolescence is defined as any instance where a product isn’t manufactured perfectly or degardes over time, regardless of whether it was planned. For me, planned obsolescence should contain at least a hint of planning.
Planed obsolescence is not a conspiracy. Apple specifically has been proven to sneakily add "silently slow down the hardware" to their updates. But there's examples of planned obsolescence abound.
Apple has a higher duty to their shareholders than to their customers.
Not hating on Apple, just stating the hard economic truth.