Apple pays out over claims it deliberately slowed down iPhones
bbc.com
bbc.com
1. Been upfront about it at the time of purchase that there was a hidden function that could make the advertised performance "over 2x the speed of iPhone 5" to become 0.8x the speed of the 5 due to technical limitations.
2. Not refused me a battery replacement due to a small dent in the screen.
I spent dozens of hours with some third-party app developers wasting their (and mine) time trying to debug and understand why their apps were running slower on my nine month old SE compared to my much older 5. Apple caused us to waste our time and energy which could have been better spent elsewhere.
The lower price of the battery replacement ironically also meant that I could not go to our equivalent of small claims court because it then was under the minimum limit of what the court would help dispute that the screen was unrelated to the battery issue.
Where they failed was in not communicating this and trying to Apple Magic “it just works pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” when they should have been straightforward.
That’s basically this controversy in a nut shell. The tin foil hatting over planned obsolescence that always comes out has never made sense for a company that supports its smartphones with software updates longer than anyone else in the industry. Even this throttling was really about prolonging the usable life of your phone—you are more likely to think you need to buy a new phone if it’s randomly turning itself off all the time, rather than just feeling a little slower than it used to.
> Where they failed was in not communicating this and trying to Apple Magic “it just works pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” when they should have been straightforward.
So they technically did the wrong thing.
> Even this throttling was really about prolonging the usable life of your phone.
Not really. It was the cheapest way to protect their reputation without acknowledging anything was wrong. If it was really about prolonging the usable life of your phone, they would have notified the user the throttling was happening and how they can regain the performance.
Is this a website for software engineers or lawyers?
> Not really. It was the cheapest way to protect their reputation without acknowledging anything was wrong.
Worked out great for reputation management!
But this isn’t a fact, it’s just your opinion. Mine is that they wanted your phone to keep working without much fuss. The fact that this is still how iPhones operate even now bolsters this point. They just now disclose that your battery has degraded to a point that impacts performance.
> they would have notified the user the throttling was happening and how they can regain the performance.
And they would have a controversy on their butt about battery planned obsolescence.
And when the lie helps to boost sales then the presumption of innocence goes bye-bye.
This is what did it for me with Apple. I'm in the EU so most like won't get a penny from them, but it's ok, they will never get a penny from me ever again (AFAIK)
It seems like in modern US, lying it so normal and accepted that anger is always directed at people calling it out.
It’s very American to forget that the rest of the world has access to the Internet.
John Mearsheimer's book "Why Leaders Lie" has a great definition on three forms of deception [1]:
* Lying - Making a knowingly false statement to deceive
* Spinning - Emphasis / de-emphasis certain parts of fact to tell a favorable story
* Concealment - Hiding certain facts to deceive
If I detect someone is "lying" (in your broader definition) I would now use the word 'dishonest' instead.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2013/05/20/deceiving-withou...
Wasn’t defending their PR handling—in fact that’s what I specially called out as the problem, so I don’t know why you’re replying to me.
I rarely update apps, as I 'freeze' the updates once I get a good-enough version (i.e. Spotify keeps messing things up imho). So with a stable iOS and the same apps, the CPU/RAM should feel the same. If you slow down my CPU, then the experience becomes worse, thus buying the newer phone.
I already addressed this in my first post. What’s more likely to make you think you need to upgrade—your phone shutting off all the time randomly, or just moving a little slower?
These were the technical choices given the degraded batteries in these phones. In my view, Apple made the choice that would be less noticeable to most people.
With that said, if you’re firmly in “planned obsolescence mode” I understand there’s not much I can say here to persuade you otherwise.
The former. The random shutdowns would make you think the battery needs replacing, meaning you wouldn't need to replace the whole phone.
The latter would make you think that modern apps aren't able to run on it anymore, or you are suffering from windows-style software bloat.
What would make you leap to that conclusion? That doesn’t follow at all, especially for the average non-technical user.
The shutdowns weren’t situations where the battery was draining to zero faster than it should have. They appeared to the user as random occurrences even with battery left in the tank. This was due to the battery no longer being capable of providing the right power when SoC power draw would peak. That’s why throttling the chip to run slower mitigates the issue.
Also the slowdowns weren't "less noticeable" in some cases, I've seen iPhones that reached a point where processing a single touch input could take up to 5 seconds.
Customers were generally not aware what the fix for the slowdown was. No non-technical person would ever think of swapping the battery because of slower performance, in my experience most people assume that the storage is full or the system is bloated. For a random user the only known guaranteed fix is buying a new phone. So Apple had an incentive to not inform users because of that and they clearly didn't mind.
> Where they failed was in not communicating this and trying to Apple Magic “it just works pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” when they should have been straightforward.
But sure, they just only have the users best interest at heart. It is confusing that you write it, when you understand full well that no rational person will believe it, I'm not even convinced you believe it.
They actually don’t want to be a profitable company, they really just want you to suffer in subtle and insidious ways.
Reminder: this was never said.
In any case, it looks like an even greater flaw in Apple's design process if they are unable to properly service a phone with a dent in the screen. It should not be unheard of, especially since they seem to keep on highlighting better and more resistant glass every year or so.
if battery cycles > x then slowdown y%
OR
if currente date > 2020 then slowdown y%
OR something else?
You can find links to litigation there.
Edit: Document is here: https://angeion-public.s3.amazonaws.com/www.SmartphonePerfor...
> The Court did not decide the case in favor of Plaintiffs or Apple.
This does not support your assertion that the court decided that Apple lied.
Your assumption that Apple's settlement to avoid guilty verdict somehow means that they didn't do the action (which they agreed to pay damages for) is the wildest instance of corporate boot licking I've seen this week :D
If the court decided that plaintiffs didn't have a case, Apple wouldn't settle.
Seems like it was proven enough that the corporation admitted to wrong doing and is paying damages to customers.
If you want someone to blame, the mostly popular apps on the App Stores get more and more bloated every year.