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

1356789

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 178
    larryalarrya Posts: 485member
    This argument has been played out for so long.  It's really exhausting, day after day, yet I cannot look away.


    randominternetpersonwatto_cobraflashfan207
  • Reply 42 of 178
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,530administrator
    larrya said:
    This argument has been played out for so long.  It's really exhausting, day after day, yet I cannot look away.


    It is a gift that will keep on giving, I'm afraid.
    king editor the gratemagman1979watto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 178
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,887member
    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!

    Hey, why not contact these law firms and offer your services as an expert witness. Or, who died and made you a battery management expert? Or, stifle it because you’re spouting nonsense. Take your pick.
    magman1979brucemcpscooter63watto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 178
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 5,887member
    larrya said:
    This argument has been played out for so long.  It's really exhausting, day after day, yet I cannot look away.


    It is a gift that will keep on giving, I'm afraid.
    Exactly. Even if Apple had been completely transparent and announced to the world that they were slowing down phones to extend useful battery life we would have the same arguments, the same lawsuits, the same outrage, the same planned obsolescence conspiracy theories. Just because people knew ahead of time what Apple was doing it would have changed nothing.

    On the other hand, Apple should have known better. Opt-in plans are always better than Opt-out plans. AT&T found that out over thirty years ago when the Ma-Bell breakup happened. The breakup meant that customers were now responsible for the repair and maintenance of their inside wiring and phones. The local phone companies decided to create an Opt-out inside wire maintenance plan. In other words you started getting billed for the service without asking for it. It was you who had to call and say “I don’t want this service.” Needless to say that prompted class action lawsuits. While the phone company’s claim that it made the issue of who fixed inside wiring going forward easier on the customer may have been valid it made people mad that they were paying for something they didn’t ask for.

    In my one-man personal opinion, Apple should have made the battery management software an opt-in process. When the battery starts to fail you get a notification that turning on the feature may help extend useful battery life until you get it replaced.
    edited January 6 watto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 178
    daven said:
    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.
    Phones Crash? Then they'd sue over that.

    The plethora of lawsuits often filed by under employed lawyers in the USA is IMHO going to cause irreprable harm to the US economy sooner or later.
    It is getting to the stage where you get sued for just looking at someone. Self destructing from within.


    edited January 6 watto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 178
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,268member
    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.
    Why would Apple do that? As the owner of the device you have total and absolute control on your hardware. If you want a device tailored to your taste beyond what Apple provides, you just re-program your device and put in it the settings you want. The documentation is public, the tools are free you can write and install any program on your iPhone, Apple does not prevent that and it cannot review apps installed outside the AppStore mechanism. If you do not want to program then just hire a programmer. Does your computer offer you a choice to control the throttling?

    I don't talk on behalf of AI but here is my explanation: Apple already alerts the user with a "service battery" notice in the Settings app, right? Once this notice appears the valid action given all the conceivable technical realities is to service the battery. The throttling is not a cure, it is just a necessary measure to keep your iPhone in working order, to keep the iPhone in a serviceable state. The throttling does not mitigate the need to service the battery. If the iPhone with a such a battery is not throttled then it will shut down unexpectedly. And those shut downs pose more risks than throttling to the user regarding the serviceability of the device and the integrity of the device data. Even a single uncontrolled shut down may totally brick the device, to end up with logic board replacement.
    edited January 6 watto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 178
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,554member
    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
    Ignorant nonsense full of half truths and outright lies. Congratulations on your first post. 

    One year of casual use will not cause your battery to fail the impedance checks as you claim. Nor will above casual use as most of us can attest to. You’d have to run 2-3 full charge cycles a day to wear down your battery that far. 

    Go troll your FUD elsewhere.
    magman1979brucemcpscooter63wlymflashfan207watto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 178
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,037member
    Does anyone know why all their other current devices seem to have a 1000 charge cycle (before it gets to 80% capacity), while the iPhone is still at 500? Is this due to the sheer capacity needed for the iPhone that 1000 charge cycle batteries are simply not feasible at this time?

  • Reply 49 of 178
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,268member
    lkrupp said:
    larrya said:
    This argument has been played out for so long.  It's really exhausting, day after day, yet I cannot look away.


    It is a gift that will keep on giving, I'm afraid.
    Exactly. Even if Apple had been completely transparent and announced to the world that they were slowing down phones to extend useful battery life we would have the same arguments, the same lawsuits, the same outrage, the same planned obsolescence conspiracy theories. Just because people knew ahead of time what Apple was doing it would have changed nothing.

    On the other hand, Apple should have known better. Opt-in plans are always better than Opt-out plans. AT&T found that out over thirty years ago when the Ma-Bell breakup happened. The breakup meant that customers were now responsible for the repair and maintenance of their inside wiring and phones. The local phone companies decided to create an Opt-out inside wire maintenance plan. In other words you started getting billed for the service without asking for it. It was you who had to call and say “I don’t want this service.” Needless to say that prompted class action lawsuits. While the phone company’s claim that it made the issue of who fixed inside wiring going forward easier on the customer may have been valid it made people mad that they were paying for something they didn’t ask for.

    In my one-man personal opinion, Apple should have made the battery management software an opt-in process. When the battery starts to fail you get a notification that turning on the feature may help extend useful battery life until you get it replaced.
    And that notification would have only one button: "Accept".

    The decision on turning on that feature may not be left to the user because the damage resulting from an unexpected shut down is always the worst. Even one single uncontrolled shut down is enough to corrupt device data, including system's and user's. This is not a game, the device may be permanently bricked, may never restart again without a logic board replacement. Users cannot tolerate uncontrolled shut downs, those must be mitigated at every expense. Those shut downs would cause more substantial class actions than throttling.
    edited January 6 watto_cobra
  • Reply 50 of 178
    Ignorant nonsense full of half truths and outright lies. Congratulations on your first post. 

    One year of casual use will not cause your battery to fail the impedance checks as you claim. Nor will above casual use as most of us can attest to. You’d have to run 2-3 full charge cycles a day to wear down your battery that far. 
    Set aside 6/6s. I have iphone 7, so far so good. But, can you explain something. When apple pushed iOS 11.2, almost all 7’s was covered with warranty. Users on reddit reported cases when they had batteries with 90-ish remaing capacity, allready throtled, got to apple only to hear that they batteries fine, that there is no any problem, they even refused to change battteries at owners cost. Suddenly, after reddit story go wild, apple is in sorry folks, we apologize. 
    I don’t have any problem with battery age, they are consumables. But in first year of use and without clear customer support policy regarding issue? For some eastern brands for half or quarter price of iphone - its acceptable, but not for APPLE and 800 USD. I’m from EU, we have consumer protection law, two year warranty is mandatory minimum. How low cost chinese brands can do bussines here but apple can’t?  Why secrecy? I’ll tell you - because this is design flaw and number of affected units is in tens of millions so there is considerable buttom line hit. 

    I’m very happy iphone user, I simply love them, but this is not acceptable behavior. No need for insults, don’t worry about me, think what you want. 

    Time will tell...
    muthuk_vanalingammaxit
  • Reply 51 of 178
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,530administrator
    Soli said:
    Does anyone know why all their other current devices seem to have a 1000 charge cycle (before it gets to 80% capacity), while the iPhone is still at 500? Is this due to the sheer capacity needed for the iPhone that 1000 charge cycle batteries are simply not feasible at this time?

    Physical size. More reactants = a battery that can handle depletion and environmental-caused damage better.
    edited January 6 magman1979
  • Reply 52 of 178
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,530administrator

    feudalist said:
    Ignorant nonsense full of half truths and outright lies. Congratulations on your first post. 

    One year of casual use will not cause your battery to fail the impedance checks as you claim. Nor will above casual use as most of us can attest to. You’d have to run 2-3 full charge cycles a day to wear down your battery that far. 
    Set aside 6/6s. I have iphone 7, so far so good. But, can you explain something. When apple pushed iOS 11.2, almost all 7’s was covered with warranty. Users on reddit reported cases when they had batteries with 90-ish remaing capacity, allready throtled, got to apple only to hear that they batteries fine, that there is no any problem, they even refused to change battteries at owners cost. Suddenly, after reddit story go wild, apple is in sorry folks, we apologize. 
    I don’t have any problem with battery age, they are consumables. But in first year of use and without clear customer support policy regarding issue? For some eastern brands for half or quarter price of iphone - its acceptable, but not for APPLE and 800 USD. I’m from EU, we have consumer protection law, two year warranty is mandatory minimum. How low cost chinese brands can do bussines here but apple can’t?  Why secrecy? I’ll tell you - because this is design flaw and number of affected units is in tens of millions so there is considerable buttom line hit. 

    I’m very happy iphone user, I simply love them, but this is not acceptable behavior. No need for insults, don’t worry about me, think what you want. 

    Time will tell...
    Look at your warranty documents again. Batteries are consumables in the US, and EU, like you said. As such, they are not covered under consumer protection laws.

    That said, with the iPhone 7, there is a chance that a battery can hit under voltage at a year, or just over. It depends on the use pattern of the owner, and the care and handling of the device. Temperature extremes like being left in a hot car, or frozen very nearly always inflict some form of permanent damage on the battery.

    The cost of the device that the battery services is irrelevant. And, they last longer than a year anyway, so I'm not sure where you're coming up with that little tidbit in your argument. The reddit threat that you're speaking of is iPhone 6-family heavy.

    These batteries are very small. Volume-wise, there's about the same amount of reactants in one as there is in a C-cell alkaline battery. Expecting them to be eternal or comparing them to the life of a car battery isn't reasonable, and expecting them to have the same voltage for years isn't either. Like I've said -- there is a sin to be accounted for, here, and it's a lack of disclosure beyond "oh, hey, we fixed the shutdown problem." But, it isn't a defect.
    edited January 6 magman1979wlymflashfan207watto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 178
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 4,554member
    feudalist said:
    Ignorant nonsense full of half truths and outright lies. Congratulations on your first post. 

    One year of casual use will not cause your battery to fail the impedance checks as you claim. Nor will above casual use as most of us can attest to. You’d have to run 2-3 full charge cycles a day to wear down your battery that far. 
    Set aside 6/6s. I have iphone 7, so far so good. But, can you explain something. When apple pushed iOS 11.2, almost all 7’s was covered with warranty. Users on reddit reported cases when they had batteries with 90-ish remaing capacity, allready throtled, got to apple only to hear that they batteries fine, that there is no any problem, they even refused to change battteries at owners cost. Suddenly, after reddit story go wild, apple is in sorry folks, we apologize. 
    I don’t have any problem with battery age, they are consumables. But in first year of use and without clear customer support policy regarding issue? For some eastern brands for half or quarter price of iphone - its acceptable, but not for APPLE and 800 USD. I’m from EU, we have consumer protection law, two year warranty is mandatory minimum. How low cost chinese brands can do bussines here but apple can’t?  Why secrecy? I’ll tell you - because this is design flaw and number of affected units is in tens of millions so there is considerable buttom line hit. 

    I’m very happy iphone user, I simply love them, but this is not acceptable behavior. No need for insults, don’t worry about me, think what you want. 

    Time will tell...
    iPhone 7 models with 90% battery health aren’t being throttled. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about and are commenting on comments and not facts. 
    magman1979brucemcpscooter63flashfan207watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 178
    macxpress said:
    feudalist said:
    Nice bullshit first post...welcome to the forum!
    U have to start from somewhere :-) :-)
    muthuk_vanalingamflashfan207
  • Reply 55 of 178
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,472member
    Good luck proving ill intent
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 56 of 178
    I’m a long time visitor to this site but have never been bothered join the forum discussions.  Flame me if you want for being a first time poster, but I’m just stating the truth.  I’ve owned iPhones as far back as the 3GS, and currently own/use an iPhone SE, iPad Pro 10.5, and iPad Pro 12.9.

    My 15 month old iPhone SE has been a recipient of this new Apple “feature” and the drama that has unfolded has infuriated me. Apple deserves every bit of bad press coming to them, and even though I never indulge in many of the frivolous class action lawsuits that abound in the industry, this is one that I’m considering jumping on.

    My SE battery tested “good” by Apple, with less than 14% wear a few weeks back, and they outright REFUSED to allow me to replace it.  REFUSED.... and I was willing to pay them the $79 replacement fee to do it.  An authorized Best Buy store reiterated the same BS... as an authorized service center, they were not allowed to replace a battery that was not testing outside mandated boundaries.  I kid you not.... they would NOT take my money for fear of reprisal by Apple. 

    Meanwhile, my “good” battery was causing my phone to throttle anywhere from 1500 MHz at 90% charge, to 911 MHz when below 70% charge.  I’ve even caught it at 600 MHz on two occasions. Yes, throttled to 1/3 the normal speed. The numbers are garnered from an independent app (CPU Dasher), but the speed reductions are confirmed by Geekbench tests and just by normal use.  Once the phone is below 70% charge, the Weather Channel app, as a rough example, is almost unusable.... it’s a stuttery slideshow.  Poor app choice perhaps, but I’m just explaining that it’s not just a benchmark observation.... it’s real world use. 

    So everyone with your rose tinted glasses that perhaps hasn’t yet fallen victim to this “feature”, be mindful that this is a real issue. The the reasons that Apple has provided are likely 50% corporate speak and 50% CYA.  I’d like to think that they are an honest company, but with the experience I and many others are having, I have growing doubt that this is the case. 

    A 15 month old phone, not abused with a “good” battery, throttled to 1/2 to 1/3 it’s normal speed, that Apple refused to allow me to PAY them to replace the battery (until the recent announcement of course)... what else should I be led to think other than it’s a sneaky tweak "done for the good of the customer” to nudge me towards buying a new phone?  At least they got caught. 

    Lawyers, do your thing.  Unacceptable. 


    feudalistmuthuk_vanalingamrogifan_new
  • Reply 57 of 178
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 1,268member
    atomic101 said:
    I’m a long time visitor to this site but have never been bothered join the forum discussions.  Flame me if you want for being a first time poster, but I’m just stating the truth.  I’ve owned iPhones as far back as the 3GS, and currently own/use an iPhone SE, iPad Pro 10.5, and iPad Pro 12.9.

    My 15 month old iPhone SE has been a recipient of this new Apple “feature” and the drama that has unfolded has infuriated me. Apple deserves every bit of bad press coming to them, and even though I never indulge in many of the frivolous class action lawsuits that abound in the industry, this is one that I’m considering jumping on.

    My SE battery tested “good” by Apple, with less than 14% wear a few weeks back, and they outright REFUSED to allow me to replace it.  REFUSED.... and I was willing to pay them the $79 replacement fee to do it.  An authorized Best Buy store reiterated the same BS... as an authorized service center, they were not allowed to replace a battery that was not testing outside mandated boundaries.  I kid you not.... they would NOT take my money for fear of reprisal by Apple. 

    Meanwhile, my “good” battery was causing my phone to throttle anywhere from 1500 MHz at 90% charge, to 911 MHz when below 70% charge.  I’ve even caught it at 600 MHz on two occasions. Yes, throttled to 1/3 the normal speed. The numbers are garnered from an independent app (CPU Dasher), but the speed reductions are confirmed by Geekbench tests and just by normal use.  Once the phone is below 70% charge, the Weather Channel app, as a rough example, is almost unusable.... it’s a stuttery slideshow.  Poor app choice perhaps, but I’m just explaining that it’s not just a benchmark observation.... it’s real world use. 

    So everyone with your rose tinted glasses that perhaps hasn’t yet fallen victim to this “feature”, be mindful that this is a real issue. The the reasons that Apple has provided are likely 50% corporate speak and 50% CYA.  I’d like to think that they are an honest company, but with the experience I and many others are having, I have growing doubt that this is the case. 

    A 15 month old phone, not abused with a “good” battery, throttled to 1/2 to 1/3 it’s normal speed, that Apple refused to allow me to PAY them to replace the battery (until the recent announcement of course)... what else should I be led to think other than it’s a sneaky tweak "done for the good of the customer” to nudge me towards buying a new phone?  At least they got caught. 

    Lawyers, do your thing.  Unacceptable. 

    You succesfully disproven yourself at the end of your long post: (until the recent announcement of course).

    As for the lawyers' thing, the settlement is already there: $79 -> $29.
    edited January 6 magman1979roundaboutnowwatto_cobra
  • Reply 58 of 178
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,037member
    Soli said:
    Does anyone know why all their other current devices seem to have a 1000 charge cycle (before it gets to 80% capacity), while the iPhone is still at 500? Is this due to the sheer capacity needed for the iPhone that 1000 charge cycle batteries are simply not feasible at this time?

    Physical size. More reactants = a battery that can handle depletion and environmental-caused damage better.
    If that was the primary measure then the Apple Watch (0.78 to 0.93 Wh) wouldn't also have a 1000 cycle rating like the iPad (19.32 to 38.8 Wh) and Mac notebook lines (41.4 to 76.0 Wh). I'd also imagine that we'd also see this formula mentioned and the stepping indicated as larger batteries help increase the number of full cycles—not just that larger batteries extend how often full cycles occur for a given workload—as the batteries increase and decrease in size. At the very least, Watch would not have a 1000 cycle charge if physical size is the primary reason.
  • Reply 59 of 178
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 2,530administrator
    atomic101 said:
    I’m a long time visitor to this site but have never been bothered join the forum discussions.  Flame me if you want for being a first time poster, but I’m just stating the truth.  I’ve owned iPhones as far back as the 3GS, and currently own/use an iPhone SE, iPad Pro 10.5, and iPad Pro 12.9.

    My 15 month old iPhone SE has been a recipient of this new Apple “feature” and the drama that has unfolded has infuriated me. Apple deserves every bit of bad press coming to them, and even though I never indulge in many of the frivolous class action lawsuits that abound in the industry, this is one that I’m considering jumping on.

    My SE battery tested “good” by Apple, with less than 14% wear a few weeks back, and they outright REFUSED to allow me to replace it.  REFUSED.... and I was willing to pay them the $79 replacement fee to do it.  An authorized Best Buy store reiterated the same BS... as an authorized service center, they were not allowed to replace a battery that was not testing outside mandated boundaries.  I kid you not.... they would NOT take my money for fear of reprisal by Apple. 

    Meanwhile, my “good” battery was causing my phone to throttle anywhere from 1500 MHz at 90% charge, to 911 MHz when below 70% charge.  I’ve even caught it at 600 MHz on two occasions. Yes, throttled to 1/3 the normal speed. The numbers are garnered from an independent app (CPU Dasher), but the speed reductions are confirmed by Geekbench tests and just by normal use.  Once the phone is below 70% charge, the Weather Channel app, as a rough example, is almost unusable.... it’s a stuttery slideshow.  Poor app choice perhaps, but I’m just explaining that it’s not just a benchmark observation.... it’s real world use. 

    So everyone with your rose tinted glasses that perhaps hasn’t yet fallen victim to this “feature”, be mindful that this is a real issue. The the reasons that Apple has provided are likely 50% corporate speak and 50% CYA.  I’d like to think that they are an honest company, but with the experience I and many others are having, I have growing doubt that this is the case. 

    A 15 month old phone, not abused with a “good” battery, throttled to 1/2 to 1/3 it’s normal speed, that Apple refused to allow me to PAY them to replace the battery (until the recent announcement of course)... what else should I be led to think other than it’s a sneaky tweak "done for the good of the customer” to nudge me towards buying a new phone?  At least they got caught. 

    Lawyers, do your thing.  Unacceptable. 


    You know what would have been a better sneaky tweak to get people to buy phones quicker? Letting the phones crash without the battery voltage-induced throttling, with some of the crashes needing a DFU reset and restore to get working again.

    I don't disagree that there should have been more discussion about it.

    The lawyers are welcome to do their thing. But, I don't predict a lot of success.
    edited January 6 watto_cobra
  • Reply 60 of 178
    entropysentropys Posts: 996member
    Atomic, I doubt your SE is being throttled if your battery is performing at 86% capacity. Have you considered you have an older generation CPU trying to run the latest generation OS?

    I find it fascinating that people buy an older gen device expecting it to last as long as latest gen devices, and perform as well when software optimised for those latest gen, more powerful devices is installed. There is a reason they don’t cost as much.

    also, if you are so desperate to replace the battery in your out of warranty device, there are any number of mall shops that would do it for you. Heck you could do it yourself!
    edited January 6 magman1979StrangeDaysbrucemcflashfan207watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.