Lawsuit seeks more than $5M from Apple for slowing older iPhones with iOS 9 upgrade
A class action lawsuit lodged with a New York district court on Tuesday dredges up claims that Apple engages in planned obsolescence, saying the company knew of potential compatibility issues when it foisted its latest iOS 9 software update on iPhone 4s owners.
Plaintiff Chaim Lerman asserts Apple engaged in deceptive trade practices and false advertisement by touting iOS 9 as compatible with legacy handsets dating back to iPhone 4s models. In actuality, the complaint reads, iOS 9 significantly interferes with iPhone 4s performance, and because Apple security protocols prevent users from downgrading, owners were forced to choose between an inoperable device or spending hundreds of dollars on a new version.
The class, which includes more than 100 members, asserts iOS 9 bogged down their iPhone 4s devices to the point of being unfit for daily use. After upgrading, both first- and third-party apps exhibited delayed launch times, slow response to touchscreen input and other problems. Overall performance became sluggish, while some users, including Lerman, reported freezes and crash events.
The lawsuit goes on to claim that Apple, through "internal testing and/or through other means," was well aware of iOS 9's negative impact on iPhone 4s functionality. Despite this knowledge, the company went through with a broad marketing campaign advertising faster performance, enhanced security, longer battery life and other enticing features. Further, the company's ads, website and iOS update page fail to warn owners of older hardware, specifically iPhone 4s devices, of potential compatibility issues.
The complaint goes after Apple's iOS ecosystem itself, saying users are more likely to buy a newer device than switch away to a competing platform because of non-transferrable investments like apps. It is also argued that Apple stands to profit from new cellular carrier contract agreements, but those claims were not fully fleshed out.
Plaintiffs are seeking over $5 million in damages with an option to treble.
As with every annual iOS update, iOS 9 was designed to take full advantage of Apple's latest hardware, in this case iPhone 6s. Aside from iPhone 6s-specific features like 3D Touch, iOS 9 is built to push Apple's class-leading A9 system-on-chip, a much more capable version of its 32-bit, dual-core A5 ancestor found in iPhone 4s.
While legacy handsets are technically compatible with iOS 9, older hardware is simply incapable of performing on a par with iPhone 6s. By definition, next-generation software is limited in its support of last-generation hardware. The case, then, in part argues Apple has a responsibility to protect consumers who are unfamiliar with rapidly evolving computer technology, or by extension consumer markets.
Apple faced similar accusations in 2011 from plaintiffs in a class action complaint who claimed iOS 4 turned their iPhone 3G into "iBricks." The case was tossed a year later, though the topic of planned obsolescence continues to crop up with nearly every significant Apple release.
New York District Court Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. is presiding over the case. No hearings have been set at this time.
Plaintiff Chaim Lerman asserts Apple engaged in deceptive trade practices and false advertisement by touting iOS 9 as compatible with legacy handsets dating back to iPhone 4s models. In actuality, the complaint reads, iOS 9 significantly interferes with iPhone 4s performance, and because Apple security protocols prevent users from downgrading, owners were forced to choose between an inoperable device or spending hundreds of dollars on a new version.
The class, which includes more than 100 members, asserts iOS 9 bogged down their iPhone 4s devices to the point of being unfit for daily use. After upgrading, both first- and third-party apps exhibited delayed launch times, slow response to touchscreen input and other problems. Overall performance became sluggish, while some users, including Lerman, reported freezes and crash events.
The lawsuit goes on to claim that Apple, through "internal testing and/or through other means," was well aware of iOS 9's negative impact on iPhone 4s functionality. Despite this knowledge, the company went through with a broad marketing campaign advertising faster performance, enhanced security, longer battery life and other enticing features. Further, the company's ads, website and iOS update page fail to warn owners of older hardware, specifically iPhone 4s devices, of potential compatibility issues.
The complaint goes after Apple's iOS ecosystem itself, saying users are more likely to buy a newer device than switch away to a competing platform because of non-transferrable investments like apps. It is also argued that Apple stands to profit from new cellular carrier contract agreements, but those claims were not fully fleshed out.
Plaintiffs are seeking over $5 million in damages with an option to treble.
As with every annual iOS update, iOS 9 was designed to take full advantage of Apple's latest hardware, in this case iPhone 6s. Aside from iPhone 6s-specific features like 3D Touch, iOS 9 is built to push Apple's class-leading A9 system-on-chip, a much more capable version of its 32-bit, dual-core A5 ancestor found in iPhone 4s.
While legacy handsets are technically compatible with iOS 9, older hardware is simply incapable of performing on a par with iPhone 6s. By definition, next-generation software is limited in its support of last-generation hardware. The case, then, in part argues Apple has a responsibility to protect consumers who are unfamiliar with rapidly evolving computer technology, or by extension consumer markets.
Apple faced similar accusations in 2011 from plaintiffs in a class action complaint who claimed iOS 4 turned their iPhone 3G into "iBricks." The case was tossed a year later, though the topic of planned obsolescence continues to crop up with nearly every significant Apple release.
New York District Court Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. is presiding over the case. No hearings have been set at this time.
Comments
2. Old hardware can’t run new software as fast as new hardware can.
3. These people should be individually fined the full price of their phones for being this stupid.
Make it something where you have to click 6 "I'm sure" buttons, but make it possible.
I could be destructive and reset the entire phone - might even lose contacts in the cloud or backups, but just let it happen. If they click "I'm sure" 6 times then let them revert.
Oh wait, none of those are still getting updated. Assuming they ever got an update.
It's a fact that Apple wants us to upgrade all of our Apple hardware as often as possible. But whether that translates into them willfully slowing down our devices or their simply not spending enough time to optimize their operating systems for "slightly older devices" is something that no one can definitively prove, except for genuine "Apple insiders." Maybe they can make performance better on slightly older devices (within the past 3 years or so) but choose not to because they feel it would be a waste of ther time. "Apple is never wrong" defenders would say "that's their right as a business" and "they have no ill intent," while folks at the opposite extreme sue Cupertno, claiming Apple is willfully defrauding people. The truth probably lies in between -- willful ignorance and apathy toward what Apple deems "aging hardware."
There many times I wish I had never upgraded my iPad3 past iOS 6. But the fact is that a lot of new apps require a minimum of iOS 7 to run. So either I have to, as a family man, take my family resources and buy a new iPad, or I avoid using a large number of apps which require iOS 7 or higher. I bought my daughter a refurbished iPod touch for Christmas last year that can only run up to iOS 6, and over the past year she has complained to me that she cannot install a lot of apps on it because she gets a message saying they require iOS 7 or higher. One could effectively argue that is not the responsibility of Apple, but it is a severe limitation and eye-opening reality to the end-user.
I personally feel that we ought to be able to keep the latest iOS on our Apple devices for at least three years after purchase without performance being noticeably degraded. This is something that I personally would like Apple to work very hard to guarantee.
Regardless, I am against lawsuits in pretty much any situation. I don't care if one has been defrauded and done wrong. Our litigious society has set me against most lawsuits of any kind, especially lawsuits against Apple which are, by far, more frivolous than others I've seen. It's time we turn the other cheek, and yes, that applies to corporations as well as individuals. America sues way too much. It's time to stop.
Just buy a new phone if your four-going-on-five-year-old phone with a FREE update doesn't work.
If I have a iPhone 4 and am on iOS 7, then upgrade to iOS 9 and *I* think i's much slower, or I just don't like it, why can't I revert to iOS 7?
Apple has it's reasons for not letting you revert - but there is a clash between what a reasonable consumer might want to do and what Apple wants to do.
All Apple has to do is distribute the software and sign the damn thing. You could have reverted from iOS9 to iOS8 in the first few days that iOS 8 was out. Apple choose to stop that for "reasons."
Just let people revert any version of iOS that was out when that phone model was released. Add all kinds of "are you sures" and "don't do its" -- but let me do it.
(Waiting for obtuse response about jail-breaking and piracy from someone now.)
It's a shame because the central complaint about the 4s might actually have some merit, but no one is going to listen to them with all that other nonsense they are spouting about planned obsolescence etc. which is almost certainly unprovable (even if you believe it). The fact that the lawyer(s) allowed that shit into the complaint is probably an indication that they are just literally writing down whatever the complainants are asking them to and that the whole thing lacks basic reason or sense.
Emotionally driven complaints like this hardly ever succeed.