Sorry, guys, I have to disagree. These batteries are evidence that could show Apple was throttling devices with objectivity good batteries. Maybe the diagnostic data could show the same thing, maybe it would be insufficient.
As soon as Apple removed the qualifying requirement that only "sufficiently degraded" batteries be replaced the evidence value of the replaced batteries went out the window. Additionally, all of the allegedly affected phones with their allegedly affected applications would have to be retained as evidence as well. The degraded battery workaround that Apple put in place is conditional and only triggered on-demand and when needed to avoid system crashes. The presence of a degraded battery in a device alone is not sufficient to prove that the device performance was impacted in any way.
This whole situation has reached an unprecedented level of ridiculousness. The class-action mechanism in the US legal system and regulatory oversight in other countries are grossly abusing their respective systems in an attempt to extort money from Apple. All of these actions like demanding that Apple retain the removed batteries are simply attempts to force Apple to settle these claims out of court by imposing onerous requirements on Apple.
The bigger question is why there exists such a vile contempt for Apple across such a broad plane of legal and political domains. Consumer satisfaction with Apple seems to be as strong as ever but these vocal minorities are attacking from all possible angles armed with little more than innuendo and false narratives. Is it simply financial opportunism or is it something more, like state sponsored efforts to denigrate Apple in the minds of consumers so additional restrictions and demands can be placed on Apple around privacy protection? If Apple can be painted as the "bad guy" then perhaps fewer consumers would oppose state sponsored, i.e., the good guys, demands to expose all user data through government mandated back doors. After all, governments always have its citizen's best interests in mind. Yup.
Unlikely that any conspiracy is underway, but Apple needs to obtain a quick and decisive ruling to beat back these ridiculous suits. Unfortunately, Apple's appeals to facts, common sense, engineering rationale, customer value assurance, and reason have little sway in today's post truth environment and broad willingness to accept obviously fabricated fiction as fact in order to meet predetermined objectives and self-interests.
Sorry, guys, I have to disagree. These batteries are evidence that could show Apple was throttling devices with objectivity good batteries. Maybe the diagnostic data could show the same thing, maybe it would be insufficient.
So. How will this show that Apple was throttling devices with objectively good batteries? The request makes no sense. How would looking at old batteries tell if a device was throttled prior. If the law firm somehow knew that a device was throttled, they then would ask to have that battery removed and replaced and then save the battery for evidence. But... If the phone is better and faster after battery replacement, then what is the point? Just saving all replaced batteries does nothing to prove their case. How would one know if the device, whose battery was replaced, was even being throttled? I just brought my sons iPhone6 in for battery replacement. all they did was run a battery diagnostic to check battery life and cycle count. Based on the number of cycles the test suggested replacement. However, this does not check for throttling and there is no mechanism to do that either from what I can see test wise at the Apple Store. Also, throttling is not constant and only happens based on processor intensity with depleted battery life.
The issue I thought from the class action argument is two fold:
1) People got rid of their devices, "prematurely", to upgrade, when all they may have needed to do was replace the battery. 2) That Apple is intentionally throttling older device regardless of whether there are issues with the battery or not.
The whole thing came to light when it was discovered that changing the battery improved performance on an iPhone 6. So, thin in it of itself proves the point that Apple isn't purposefully slowing down older phones, regardless of battery life. A phone that is still slow, after battery has been replaced, doesn't equate throttling the device on purpose either, since there could be another hardware issue, data corruption, etc that could be a cause for the slow down. As far as point 1 above, if Apple didn't add the code to throttle the processor at peak times, those customer would have ended up with a phone that reboots randomly during peak processing usage. Those same people would have chosen to upgrade their older devices then anyway. So moot point. If anything apple increased the longevity of those devices but did it without communicating the issue properly upfront.
If I were Apple, I'd gladly give them the batteries. Apple should first have those scum-feeding lawyers sign a release of liability waiver, and be required to store those dangerous batteries on their own premises. Let's see them change their tune.
This request is designed to ramp up costs for Apple to increase the speed and size off the settlement.
Yes, trying to force Apple to spend time and money jumping through hoops and over hurdles storing thousands of batteries of which few or any may be called upon to be tested.
Keeping the batteries to help prove an allegation that Apple knowingly throttled good batteries makes sense. But that's for a trial. Most of these firms don't want a trial— they want a settlement. That's were the profit is.
Says who? Seeing what one defective battery can to do, I can't imagine a scenario where 'a few hundred would be ok' without making Apple still jump through hoops. And if it's just a 'few hundred', which should be saved for evidentiary value?
Thousands would be worse yet. I'd like to see the details on the two fire incidents that happened when Apple techs were doing battery exchanges.
To prove that Apple is slowing devices for its own purposes, the lawyers need some evidence. That evidence would be a phone with its original battery suffering slowdown even though that battery was in good condition.
I can't see that replacement battery performance proves anything: * A malignant Apple (that they need to prove exists) would just remove any malicious slowdown when a new battery was detected * An honest Apple (the one in the real world) would detect the real condition of the new battery and remove the genuinely battery-related slowdown
Like many Apple users, this issue makes me cross. Apple has introduced some power-management software that allows a phone to continue operating with a disadvantaged battery (old, cold, whatever) where it previously would have shut-down to protect itself. Why isn't that an unreservedly good thing?
What if they want these batteries to see whether Apple wanted to avoid a recall of the batteries. Not planned obsolescence, but dodging a recall to avoid replacing some defective batteries, by slowing down the phones.
Sorry, guys, I have to disagree. These batteries are evidence that could show Apple was throttling devices with objectivity good batteries. Maybe the diagnostic data could show the same thing, maybe it would be insufficient.
Sorry, the batteries are not evidence of anything, as Apple is replacing batteries at customer request, so there are going to be many (maybe most) customers getting a free new battery while the getting is good, even if there is no objective evidence that their phones have in any way been throttled or the batteries diminished at all.
Hey, DiCello Levitt & Casey, don't you want to make sure Apple can't tamper with the evidence? Keep those batteries in your offices to make sure they stay safe.
Sorry, guys, I have to disagree. These batteries are evidence that could show Apple was throttling devices with objectivity good batteries. Maybe the diagnostic data could show the same thing, maybe it would be insufficient.
The degraded battery workaround that Apple put in place is conditional and only triggered on-demand and when needed to avoid system crashes. The presence of a degraded battery in a device alone is not sufficient to prove that the device performance was impacted in any way.
Not true. The phones are slowed down even when when connected to power on your car or desk through the lightning port. This was the case with my 6S until the battery was replaced at 60% health.
Sorry, guys, I have to disagree. These batteries are evidence that could show Apple was throttling devices with objectivity good batteries. Maybe the diagnostic data could show the same thing, maybe it would be insufficient.
Well, I'll just have to disagree with you. This whole "planned obsolescence" suit is silly, this injunction is silly, and your comment is silly. The battery stores zero information on anything, so how can it provide any evidence or proof that iOS is doing anything to throttle the phone in and of itself? The issue at hand is with iOS, not the batteries. You even comment about the diagnostic data; well guess what, that is where any evidence would lie, not with the battery.
At any rate, if I were Apple and the injunction is sustained I'd just drop them off at the law firms front door. Millions of them.
Sorry, guys, I have to disagree. These batteries are evidence that could show Apple was throttling devices with objectivity good batteries. Maybe the diagnostic data could show the same thing, maybe it would be insufficient.
The degraded battery workaround that Apple put in place is conditional and only triggered on-demand and when needed to avoid system crashes. The presence of a degraded battery in a device alone is not sufficient to prove that the device performance was impacted in any way.
Not true. The phones are slowed down even when when connected to power on your car or desk through the lightning port. This was the case with my 6S until the battery was replaced at 60% health.
Only if you do something that demands peak power. Got that. And also not at all power level. Got that. I've got a a 6s with 60% so I know your exaggerating A LOT.: Got that.
If its not true and it happens at all power level under any load then you should fracking produce a link from a reputable source.
All power to the chip goes through the battery, so under load and if the battery is not near 100%, if the battery is depleted, you get the issue even when plugged in.
The reason for that is clear, not having to have two separate power regulation / protection circuits. I expect all modern phonest to be doing the same thing.
BTW, normally you'd phone would DIE EVEN WHEN PLUGGED IN THIS CASE. GOT THAT.
What if they want these batteries to see whether Apple wanted to avoid a recall of the batteries. Not planned obsolescence, but dodging a recall to avoid replacing some defective batteries, by slowing down the phones.
Then it would be easy to prove those batteries are defective. If the problem occurs at the normal time a battery cycled X time is depleting, you demonstrated that this is NOT the case.
BTW, a 6 or 6s defective battery by now would be at a minimum 1.5 year old and likely already dead. If it is not dead, it WASN'T DEFECTIVE.
I think the request is silly, but because the lawsuit is silly, but also silly is the idea that something they charged their customers to remove from a phone is too dangerous to not destroy. If it is THAT dangerous then they should be offering to remove them for free to protect their customers.
I don't think a single battery is that dangerous, but having a stockpile of a million or more used batteries in a warehouse somewhere would be a ticking time bomb unless Apple stored them individually in fireproof boxes like Samsung used when returning the exploding Note 7. There is no way to guarantee every battery is OEM or than every one is completely undamaged, and a fire from one would quickly get out of control.
This is a ridiculous request. Saving the diagnostic data is reasonable, but requiring every individual battery to be retained sounds like just another way for the lawyers to force Apple into a settlement rather than incur the storage expenses.
Like Samsung ? 😂 samsung note 7 retired from the market literally exploded in their facility a few months after the scandal. But as usual only Apple related news are highlighted by the press.
Sorry, guys, I have to disagree. These batteries are evidence that could show Apple was throttling devices with objectivity good batteries. Maybe the diagnostic data could show the same thing, maybe it would be insufficient.
Yep. I would like to see the results of the investigation. apple is throttling smartphones without a bad battery, and that’s unacceptable. they must change their throttling alghoritm btw I don’t think they need to keep the batteries to prove it.
Sorry, guys, I have to disagree. These batteries are evidence that could show Apple was throttling devices with objectivity good batteries. Maybe the diagnostic data could show the same thing, maybe it would be insufficient.
Yep. I would like to see the results of the investigation. apple is throttling smartphones without a bad battery, and that’s unacceptable. they must change their throttling alghoritm btw I don’t think they need to keep the batteries to prove it.
They are doing nothing of the sort, and Poole's benchmarks that lurched this whole saga forward prove it.
The court should agree and put the cost of doing so on the lawyers making the request, to be reimbursed by Apple in the case that Apple loses in court (not just agrees to a settlement). Then we'd see how vital these batteries are to the case.
I think the request is silly, but because the lawsuit is silly, but also silly is the idea that something they charged their customers to remove from a phone is too dangerous to not destroy. If it is THAT dangerous then they should be offering to remove them for free to protect their customers.
I don't think a single battery is that dangerous, but having a stockpile of a million or more used batteries in a warehouse somewhere would be a ticking time bomb unless Apple stored them individually in fireproof boxes like Samsung used when returning the exploding Note 7. There is no way to guarantee every battery is OEM or than every one is completely undamaged, and a fire from one would quickly get out of control.
This is a ridiculous request. Saving the diagnostic data is reasonable, but requiring every individual battery to be retained sounds like just another way for the lawyers to force Apple into a settlement rather than incur the storage expenses.
Are the batteries dangerous once they have been drained? It is the energy they store while charged that should make them dangerous. Once they are discharged and the stored energy depleted I would think that they are safe unless the case is damaged.
Yeah tell that to Samsung who had to spend $5 billion building a new warehouse after the stockpile of faulty Note7 batteries caught fire and destroyed the building.
The thing that makes Lithium batteries such good batteries is also the thing that makes them the most dangerous batteries we have. Until they start manufacturing Lithium Gel batteries the storage of these "dead" batteries is basically not a good thing.
Comments
This whole situation has reached an unprecedented level of ridiculousness. The class-action mechanism in the US legal system and regulatory oversight in other countries are grossly abusing their respective systems in an attempt to extort money from Apple. All of these actions like demanding that Apple retain the removed batteries are simply attempts to force Apple to settle these claims out of court by imposing onerous requirements on Apple.
The bigger question is why there exists such a vile contempt for Apple across such a broad plane of legal and political domains. Consumer satisfaction with Apple seems to be as strong as ever but these vocal minorities are attacking from all possible angles armed with little more than innuendo and false narratives. Is it simply financial opportunism or is it something more, like state sponsored efforts to denigrate Apple in the minds of consumers so additional restrictions and demands can be placed on Apple around privacy protection? If Apple can be painted as the "bad guy" then perhaps fewer consumers would oppose state sponsored, i.e., the good guys, demands to expose all user data through government mandated back doors. After all, governments always have its citizen's best interests in mind. Yup.
Unlikely that any conspiracy is underway, but Apple needs to obtain a quick and decisive ruling to beat back these ridiculous suits. Unfortunately, Apple's appeals to facts, common sense, engineering rationale, customer value assurance, and reason have little sway in today's post truth environment and broad willingness to accept obviously fabricated fiction as fact in order to meet predetermined objectives and self-interests.
The issue I thought from the class action argument is two fold:
1) People got rid of their devices, "prematurely", to upgrade, when all they may have needed to do was replace the battery.
2) That Apple is intentionally throttling older device regardless of whether there are issues with the battery or not.
The whole thing came to light when it was discovered that changing the battery improved performance on an iPhone 6. So, thin in it of itself proves the point that Apple isn't purposefully slowing down older phones, regardless of battery life. A phone that is still slow, after battery has been replaced, doesn't equate throttling the device on purpose either, since there could be another hardware issue, data corruption, etc that could be a cause for the slow down. As far as point 1 above, if Apple didn't add the code to throttle the processor at peak times, those customer would have ended up with a phone that reboots randomly during peak processing usage. Those same people would have chosen to upgrade their older devices then anyway. So moot point. If anything apple increased the longevity of those devices but did it without communicating the issue properly upfront.
Keeping the batteries to help prove an allegation that Apple knowingly throttled good batteries makes sense. But that's for a trial. Most of these firms don't want a trial— they want a settlement. That's were the profit is.
Says who? Seeing what one defective battery can to do, I can't imagine a scenario where 'a few hundred would be ok' without making Apple still jump through hoops. And if it's just a 'few hundred', which should be saved for evidentiary value?
Thousands would be worse yet. I'd like to see the details on the two fire incidents that happened when Apple techs were doing battery exchanges.
I can't see that replacement battery performance proves anything:
* A malignant Apple (that they need to prove exists) would just remove any malicious slowdown when a new battery was detected
* An honest Apple (the one in the real world) would detect the real condition of the new battery and remove the genuinely battery-related slowdown
Like many Apple users, this issue makes me cross. Apple has introduced some power-management software that allows a phone to continue operating with a disadvantaged battery (old, cold, whatever) where it previously would have shut-down to protect itself. Why isn't that an unreservedly good thing?
[Just seen Toddimt's comment, sorry for the duplication of some points]
At any rate, if I were Apple and the injunction is sustained I'd just drop them off at the law firms front door. Millions of them.
And also not at all power level. Got that.
I've got a a 6s with 60% so I know your exaggerating A LOT.: Got that.
If its not true and it happens at all power level under any load then you should fracking produce a link from a reputable source.
All power to the chip goes through the battery, so under load and if the battery is not near 100%, if the battery is depleted, you get the issue even when plugged in.
The reason for that is clear, not having to have two separate power regulation / protection circuits. I expect all modern phonest to be doing the same thing.
BTW, normally you'd phone would DIE EVEN WHEN PLUGGED IN THIS CASE. GOT THAT.
BTW, a 6 or 6s defective battery by now would be at a minimum 1.5 year old and likely already dead. If it is not dead, it WASN'T DEFECTIVE.
So, pretty easy thing to demonstrate huh.
samsung note 7 retired from the market literally exploded in their facility a few months after the scandal. But as usual only Apple related news are highlighted by the press.
apple is throttling smartphones without a bad battery, and that’s unacceptable.
they must change their throttling alghoritm
btw I don’t think they need to keep the batteries to prove it.
The thing that makes Lithium batteries such good batteries is also the thing that makes them the most dangerous batteries we have. Until they start manufacturing Lithium Gel batteries the storage of these "dead" batteries is basically not a good thing.