Law firm that extracted $450M settlement in Apple e-books case is going after company for ...

2456789

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 178
    BluntBlunt Posts: 197member
    saltyzip said:
    I can't understand how people can defend apple in this situation, if they had been transparent about the problem then there wouldn't have been an investigation into this and outrage post factual results. 

    There Are None So Blind

    As Those Who Will Not See


    Posted from your Pixel 2? (you know the phone with all the shutdown and restart problems).

    If you search for Android phones with shutdown and restart problems you will see this problem is quite common. But hey, Android phones end up gathering dust after two years of use so lets pretent there is no real problem there.
    edited January 6 williamlondonStrangeDaysanton zuykovchialkruppmacxpressmagman1979pscooter63wlymwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 178
    thedbathedba Posts: 441member
    We’ve seen many opinions flow on the web about this case with a wide array of opinions.
    In the end, just like the e-book case it’s the lawyers who will come out as the winners.
    In an older John Gruber podcast, I believe he mentioned that he was mailed $5 compensation for having purchased books from iBooks. He was having a good laugh.

    If any of these cases are won by the vultures/lawyers, I wonder how much the common folk will get back? I doubt it’s going to be anywhere near the price of an iPhone, even a used one.
    williamlondontmaywatto_cobraflashfan207
  • Reply 23 of 178
    The $450 million settlement from Apple over e-book price fixing was enabled by the success of the United States of America v. Apple Inc. antitrust case in which the Court held that Apple Inc. conspired to raise the price of e-books. It was a controversial decision. I personally doubt that there will be a successful case here against Apple on the batteries but this is a strange world these days.
    thedbawilliamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 178
    The odds of Apple being found guilty are proportional to the amount of cash it has available to pay settlements. 
  • Reply 25 of 178
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,556member
    kimberly said:

    georgie01 said:
    This law firm does not actually believe they have a case. They are simply making a fuss hoping Apple will settle to make the negative press go away.
    Did the law firm advise you personally that this was their motive?
    georgie01 said:
    The only argument they will ever be able to make is that it makes consumers unhappy that Apple slowed down phones in specific circumstances in order to fix a shutdown problem due to aging batteries so that the device works more smoothly.
    Did the law firm engage you as a consultant and your considered legal advice was that there was only one argument?
    georgie01 said:
    That will go nowhere in the court and the law firm knows it.
    Did the law firm advise you personally that this was their conclusion?
    Welcome, astroturfer!
    magman1979brucemcwatto_cobraflashfan207
  • Reply 26 of 178
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,382member
    In last eBook case, US justice department was against Apple. Here is an example. When your cell network balances performance and drops your calls,slow response even though they claim fast LTE speed supported. No law suit against cell companies.. Millions of examples where no real harm to consumers but products get tuned to circumstances which is designed into products are kicked in. I call it, works as design. Apple also offered $29 battery replacement so it is more than one can expect.
    Apple should fight(not settle) this law suit and bring that law firm down to it's knees.
    edited January 6 randominternetpersonbrucemcwatto_cobraflashfan207zimmermann
  • Reply 27 of 178
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,556member
    "To add insult to injury, Apple's answer to its loyal customers is Pay us $29 for a replacement battery to fix our covered-up slowdown.' Consumers deserve a better answer."

    ...well if you don’t replace your used up battery, sudden shutdowns won’t be the better answer. Do these aholes and whiner perform the same song & dance when car batteries fail to deliver the peak current draw needed to crank in the winter? After a few years the car battery can’t do it and needs replacement. 
    magman1979pscooter63brucemcwlymwatto_cobraflashfan207
  • Reply 28 of 178
    kimberly said:

    georgie01 said:
    This law firm does not actually believe they have a case. They are simply making a fuss hoping Apple will settle to make the negative press go away.
    Did the law firm advise you personally that this was their motive?
    georgie01 said:
    The only argument they will ever be able to make is that it makes consumers unhappy that Apple slowed down phones in specific circumstances in order to fix a shutdown problem due to aging batteries so that the device works more smoothly.
    Did the law firm engage you as a consultant and your considered legal advice was that there was only one argument?
    georgie01 said:
    That will go nowhere in the court and the law firm knows it.
    Did the law firm advise you personally that this was their conclusion?


    My conclusions are common sense, unless you’re prepared to believe the law firm is a group of incompetent fools with regards to technology. There is no case here by any stretch of the imagination.

    The only thing going on is that there is a highly vocal tiny minority of people who think this is a terrible thing that Apple has done and then invent reasons why Apple’s doing it (i.e. planned obsolescence) that are incorrect and, more importantly, unprovable in court, and then other gullible people believe it and jump on the bandwagon. This law firm is riding on the bad press generated. This case is going to go nowhere and experienced lawyers are not so stupid to believe it will. They’re playing a game with Apple.
    StrangeDaysmagman1979brucemcwatto_cobraflashfan207
  • Reply 29 of 178
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,382member
    Blunt said:
    saltyzip said:
    I can't understand how people can defend apple in this situation, if they had been transparent about the problem then there wouldn't have been an investigation into this and outrage post factual results. 

    There Are None So Blind

    As Those Who Will Not See


    Posted from your Pixel 2? (you know the phone with all the shutdown and restart problems).

    If you search for Android phones with shutdown and restart problems you will see this problem is quite common. But hey, Android phones end up gathering dust after two years of use so lets pretent there is no real problem there.
    Besides shutdown,restart what about freeze ? My work android phone freezes under load like video playing and long conference calls ? Than one way out is reboot.
    edited January 6 magman1979watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 178
    revenantrevenant Posts: 460member
    this is utter nonsense. imagine the people who would have complained and sued if the phones started just not working.  

    if the battery is over a year old, apple legally has no responsibility to anyone. 

    apple should have said something and not let it be hidden. 

    lithium ion batteries were NEVER supposed to last forever.

    apple sadly needs to educate those who would buy their products that nothing lasts forever.
    Solimagman1979watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 178
    kimberly said:

    bluefire1 said:
    Apple should have known better.
    Maybe not "known" but Apple apologised about a week ago for not being more transparent.  As part of the apology, Apple has cut the cost of a replacement battery and committed to provide more visibility (specifics of this were not advised) in relation to the health of a device's battery in a future IOS update.  Missing in the Apple apology was an undertaking to provide the user with an IOS Settings choice 'Throttle/No Throttle & Accept Risks' once the battery performance drops to threshhold ... maybe someone on AI can explain whether giving the user a choice in IOS Settings is problematic.
    It is not problematic. The question is - should it be done? How often an average US car owner checks values of long and short term fuel trims? if you ask them, answer will be “what is it” in95- 99 percent of the cases. The same is about this case. Making them read something and then let them decide is not the best way of doing it, because they can’t really understand it. Those that can will not make a fuss even without that new switch added to iOS.

    edited January 6
  • Reply 32 of 178
    dachardachar Posts: 330member
    Rayz2016 said:
    alandail said:
    bluefire1 said:
    Apple should have known better.
    All they did was fix a problem.  Now they are being sued for fixing it.
    This is true, but all they had to do is look back at all the nonsense written about them for the past twenty years. Then they would have realised not being up front about it, straight away, was going to end badly. 
    Presumably all kinds of improvements are made with each release of iOS. I am not aware that Apple lists everything that they have changed, improved or added. Instead doesn’t Apple provide a summary of some key features that they think are of interest? Perhaps what happened was simply the battery throttling among many many changes was not considered worthy of promotion. 
    randominternetpersonStrangeDaysmagman1979watto_cobra
  • Reply 33 of 178
    alandail said:
    bluefire1 said:
    Apple should have known better.
    All they did was fix a problem.  Now they are being sued for fixing it.
    No, they did not fix anything. They buried, and now they want as to pay twice for design flaw. 
    This is not about aged or depleted batteries because in that case it is implicated that iphone is no better than for a year or so of mild use. This is about tipical apple product: well designed, well built, durable and dependable. Usually best in class. But no more. After only one year we are req. to spend another 80 bucks for own property to retain performance. No, that’s not apple and I’m not willing to accept that kind of usefull life of most expensive product in its class. You should not either
    maxit
  • Reply 34 of 178
    I believe what apple did is entirely right however what was really dumb was not telling us about it. If i had known they my old iphone6+ needed a new batterry i would have replaced it. What was really annoying was not knowing my phone was being slowed down. I experienced severe slow downs and it really affected my ability to use the ohone at times. Apple only has itself to blame for this one 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 35 of 178
    alandail said:
    bluefire1 said:
    Apple should have known better.
    All they did was fix a problem.  Now they are being sued for fixing it.
    They didnt really fix the problem they put a band aid on it. My phone was slowed down and it got to the point where it was almost unusable. If apple had simply told me it needed a new battery i would have got one and my problems would have been fixed. But they didnt and they made matters worse. Well at least i know now to replace my new ip x battery when this happens again but really apple you should be ashamed 
    muthuk_vanalingamfeudalistsingularity
  • Reply 36 of 178
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,052member
    alandail said:
    bluefire1 said:
    Apple should have known better.
    All they did was fix a problem.  Now they are being sued for fixing it.
    They didnt really fix the problem they put a band aid on it. My phone was slowed down and it got to the point where it was almost unusable. If apple had simply told me it needed a new battery i would have got one and my problems would have been fixed. But they didnt and they made matters worse. Well at least i know now to replace my new ip x battery when this happens again but really apple you should be ashamed 
    You know for sure that it wasn't from an OS issue, upgrading to iOS 11 which caused other slowdowns, but absolutely that they didn't just affect peak performance, but kept clocking your system down until it was "almost unusable"?

    Your comment is the reason why transparency is a double edge sword—people will conflate one issue with another with post hoc fallacies. Unless you did many benchmarks where you removed and replaced the battery (repeatedly) to show that one battery over the other slowed the whole system down to an "almost unusable" level—not just capping the maximum clock rate where voltage is highest—then I don't see how can possibly know that your entire system was so slow to make it "almost unusable."

    PS: It's inarguable that having the device do a hard shutdown makes it "completely unusable."
    edited January 6 macxpressrandominternetpersonStrangeDaysmagman1979brucemcwatto_cobrapscooter63
  • Reply 37 of 178
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 4,230member
    feudalist said:
    alandail said:
    bluefire1 said:
    Apple should have known better.
    All they did was fix a problem.  Now they are being sued for fixing it.
    No, they did not fix anything. They buried, and now they want as to pay twice for design flaw. 
    This is not about aged or depleted batteries because in that case it is implicated that iphone is no better than for a year or so of mild use. This is about tipical apple product: well designed, well built, durable and dependable. Usually best in class. But no more. After only one year we are req. to spend another 80 bucks for own property to retain performance. No, that’s not apple and I’m not willing to accept that kind of usefull life of most expensive product in its class. You should not either
    Nice bullshit first post...welcome to the forum!
    StrangeDaysmagman1979brucemcwlymwatto_cobrapscooter63
  • Reply 38 of 178
    davendaven Posts: 456member
    So the people here wanting to sue would rather have their phones crash when they need more power than the battery can deliver instead of throttled performance during peak demands? You can bet they would sue over that too.
    Solibrucemcwatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 178
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,538administrator
    ivanh said:
    1. Capacity depleted up to 20% of design should not fail to deliver peak power required by the iPhone;

    2. Running down to 30% energy left after a full charge will still provide peak power required by any iPhone;

    3. Not mentioned by any battery-gate article editors that all lithium-ion batteries have their own circuit processors managing the batteries. It should not be the iOS business to throttle it.

    4. iOS should not “assume” all batteries of the same age depleting at the same rate by the iPhone model, iOS version or the time-stamp of the battery on the iPhone and throttle the iPhones accordingly!

    1. Physics may differ with you. This depends on the mechanism of damage to the battery, and about 15 other factors. See the other article you commented on about 15 times.
    2. See 1.
    3. They do, that's true. It's also irrelevant. It can't magically get any extra voltage out of a battery that can't deliver it anymore.
    4. It doesn't. The throttling doesn't kick in magically at 80%. It kicks in temporarily when a low-voltage condition is measured by the phone. This is why not every phone is affected by it, and why phones aren't all affected exactly the same by it.
    edited January 6 SoliStrangeDaystmaymagman1979brucemcwlymwatto_cobraflashfan207pscooter63Rayz2016
  • Reply 40 of 178
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,688member
    feudalist said:
    alandail said:
    bluefire1 said:
    Apple should have known better.
    All they did was fix a problem.  Now they are being sued for fixing it.
    No, they did not fix anything.
    OK, so I know that you're probably just a drive-by troll, but I can't help but bite:
    feudalist said:
    They buried, and now they want as to pay twice for design flaw.
    Please could you elaborate on exactly what you think this "design flaw" is/was?
    feudalist said:
    This is not about aged or depleted batteries
    Yes it is.
    feudalist said:
    because in that case it is implicated that iphone is no better than for a year or so of mild use.
    This does not logically follow from your previous statement, and is also total bollocks. One year of "mild use" of an iPhone does not result in its battery reaching the state that requires CPU throttling. One year contains 365 days, and "mild use" would imply one full battery cycle every 1 to 2 days, i.e. about 243 cycles for the year. It takes over 600 to 700 cycles before the battery reaches the point that throttling is necessary.
    randominternetpersonStrangeDaysmagman1979wlymwatto_cobraflashfan207pscooter63zimmermann
Sign In or Register to comment.