Fools do not understand how batteries work. I hope the judges understand.
Fools who believe in ‘secretive features’ that Apple denied until they were exposed... Pretty sure the judge will understand.
It wasn't secret...it was in the description of the update that did it. Its not Apple's fault people don't read the update notes before pressing Update.
Getting closer to that $5 iTunes gift card every day. Can’t wait!
Haha....yeah thats about all people will get if anything and Apple still wins in the end because most likely people will redeem that $5 gift card and spend more than $5 so Apple profits on this ridiculous lawsuit. People will make a big deal from the outcome for a couple of weeks and then its back to business as usual.
So let's say you take your car in for a service. After getting it back it doesn't seem as peppy as usual. You complain to the Dealership whereapon they inform you "Yeah we reflashed your ECU to reduce horsepower. It'll make your engine last longer". How many of us would be happy with that?
So what are you going to do then, ask the manufacturer to give you a new engine so you can get more life from your vehicle? You're going to ask Apple to give you a new battery aren't you?! Whats the difference?
The benchmarks are actually irrelevant. Apple has admitted that some phones speeds were intentionally throttled, so whether it occurred is not the question. The question is whether it was illegal and or people were harmed by it.
The problem here is not the feature, it’s how it was introduced (or wasn’t introduced.) Just for the sake of argument, can anyone prove that Apple didn’t start throttleing old batteries to encourage users to upgrade, then, once it was exposed, came up with a plausible excuse in attempt to mollify them? Or perhaps they came up with the throttling feature as a legitimite fix for shutdowns, but then intentionally concealed it in the hopes that it would lead more people to replace their phones. I actually do believe that Apple’s intentions were good, but that involves more trust on my part than looking Apple’s actual actions. This site is going to give a very biased sample - most people here are Apple fans and inclined to believe Apple’s good intentions, but that’s not the case with the general public.
Had Apple been more upfront and clear on this, there would be no doubt in anyone’s mind, but by concealing what was happening, they leave things open to interpretation and piss off their customers. (They also would have saved a ton of bad press and the cost of all those $29 battery replacements.)
Coincidentally, I had my 6s in to an Apple store a month and a half ago, I was told the battery was healthy and I didn’t qualify for a replacement. After upgrading iOS, it shows 91% health on the battery, but then it randomly shut down a few days ago and got a message when it started back up. Now it’s running a bit slower but not crashing. Had I not gotten that message, I could easily have assumed that I just needed to get a new phone. The cost of replacing a phone a year earlier than necessary is definitely a harm, IMO
I’d love to see a poll of how many users are turning off the battery management feature so their iPhones can just shut down in the middle of a 911 call. I also have read a couple of opinion pieces lately that postulate another nefarious motive in Apple’s new feature, namely that people will start needlessly replacing batteries (to Apple’s profit) when the efficiency rating falls below 100%. A lot of people these days are obsessive about stuff like that. So it’s another case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t brewing.
if a phone was to unexpectedly shut down during a 911 call (unexpectedly meaning there's still battery life left), that is not normal, not with an old battery, not with a new one, unless there was an engineering defect pairing the CPU with the incorrect battery size/capacity. So, that is what I hope these lawsuits will get to the bottom of: whether there was a cover-up of a recall-worthy defect with a throttling down of CPUs.
I commend them for their actions. I despise them for their lack of transparency.
Apple, Microsoft, Adobe, every software company makes changes they don't talk about. It's not being sneaky, it's not because they are trying to hide something. There are just so many tweaks and adjustments in a major software release that if you documented everything you'd have to put out an encyclopedia when you released it.
Apple made a tweak to keep the phone from running up against currant limits if the battery was marginal. The change sat around for a year until some mouth breather on Reddit "discovered" it and made a huge stink about this non issue. Then the lawyers smelled a chance to line their pockets and started circling. I honestly believe that Apple didn't publicize this change because they thought of it as too trivial to bother with. Think of it this way: Apple did something that would have the effect of increasing the useful life of their devices. Why didn't they broadcast this on every ad and web page? Because they thought the tweak was too minor, to trivial and in reality would not impact most users. It wasn't worth bothering with. TC and the Board likely never knew about it. This was a bug-fix that was never mentioned outside of the iOS software group.
So let's say you take your car in for a service. After getting it back it doesn't seem as peppy as usual. You complain to the Dealership whereapon they inform you "Yeah we reflashed your ECU to reduce horsepower. It'll make your engine last longer". How many of us would be happy with that?
So what are you going to do then, ask the manufacturer to give you a new engine so you can get more life from your vehicle? You're going to ask Apple to give you a new battery aren't you?! Whats the difference?
If the manufacturer reduced the horsepower of my engine because using it at its full advertised performance could lead to it unexpectedly shutting off in traffic, then yes I would expect them to replace the engine. Performance throttling would be just a stopgap safety measure until they could figure out how to make it work as expected by a reasonable consumer. If they couldn't fix the underlying design defect then I would expect to be compensated.
The benchmarks are actually irrelevant. Apple has admitted that some phones speeds were intentionally throttled, so whether it occurred is not the question. The question is whether it was illegal and or people were harmed by it.
The problem here is not the feature, it’s how it was introduced (or wasn’t introduced.) Just for the sake of argument, can anyone prove that Apple didn’t start throttleing old batteries to encourage users to upgrade, then, once it was exposed, came up with a plausible excuse in attempt to mollify them? Or perhaps they came up with the throttling feature as a legitimite fix for shutdowns, but then intentionally concealed it in the hopes that it would lead more people to replace their phones. I actually do believe that Apple’s intentions were good, but that involves more trust on my part than looking Apple’s actual actions. This site is going to give a very biased sample - most people here are Apple fans and inclined to believe Apple’s good intentions, but that’s not the case with the general public.
Had Apple been more upfront and clear on this, there would be no doubt in anyone’s mind, but by concealing what was happening, they leave things open to interpretation and piss off their customers. (They also would have saved a ton of bad press and the cost of all those $29 battery replacements.)
Coincidentally, I had my 6s in to an Apple store a month and a half ago, I was told the battery was healthy and I didn’t qualify for a replacement. After upgrading iOS, it shows 91% health on the battery, but then it randomly shut down a few days ago and got a message when it started back up. Now it’s running a bit slower but not crashing. Had I not gotten that message, I could easily have assumed that I just needed to get a new phone. The cost of replacing a phone a year earlier than necessary is definitely a harm, IMO
The legal discovery process will address this. Apple's internal communications about this feature will be brought into the courtroom and we'll find out what was said, by whom, and when. I hope/expect there won't be any emails like the recent Facebook memo ("yeah some people might die, but since we're all about connecting people, that's the price of progress.") that will hurt Apple's reputation. Apple has a product philosophy that is obsessive about hiding silly technical stuff that the typical user shouldn't have to worry about so I expect any conversations would have been about whether this is one of those things.
Fools do not understand how batteries work. I hope the judges understand.
Fools who believe in ‘secretive features’ that Apple denied until they were exposed... Pretty sure the judge will understand.
Horse-shit. Fools have been claiming that Apple intentionally slowed down their devices maliciously so that people would buy new ones much, much before these throttling features were ever implemented in software. They were full of shit then, and they still are now. Their narrative is still utterly baseless. The throttling has nothing to do with Apple crippling their own products so you run out and buy new ones, its for a very specific technical reason caused by the realities of battery limitations, in order to give users a better experience (compared to the battery shutting down). The people now claiming "I KNEW IT" after they've been claiming since the 1st iPhone (as well as products without batteries like iMacs, etc) that Apple "slows down" products through software are still fools and morons.
I for one want to see Apple eat this one. They shouldn't be limiting the components of the phone without notifying the user first. It should be clear (as well as your staff understand) what the product is doing. I used a jetski one time, I was aware it had a limp home mode, I never had to use it but you can be damn sure that computer was going to tell me it was in that mode (beyond it obviously operating at a low RPM). Surely a 2015 iPhone can make it clear if a 2002 jetski could. Everyone understands batteries decay but that doesnt change anything.
My point exactly. Why was this significant "feature" to "better my experience" kept so clandestine? You already have a Battery Saver mode that notifies the user that it has been activated, for Pete's sake! Why would you not afford the same courtesy (notification) to a throttling situation? Ignorance? Arrogance? Stupidity?
I was the recipient of this grandiose feature and had to fight to pay Apple to change my battery. Thank the stars that Apple got called to the table so that the tech would finally do me the favor a few weeks later.
I know that batteries wear out. What I didn't expect was that it would happen only a year into my phone purchase, and that Apple would keep it a secret to me. I now have a very bad taste in my mouth from the experience. Ten years of trust shattered in mere moments.
You also previously claimed it was introduced in iOS 11 despite the fact that it was introduced in 10.2.1, so your claims on objective truth are flimsy. There are a lot of unknowns so none of us here will know your truth.
And the battery section in settings had existing warning messages when a battery was failing.
It just blows my mind that people accept weak car batteries stalling in winter but lose their goddam minds when it’s their cell phone.
Here we go again. Trying to discredit someone based on a snippet of information. The reality is that no one knows when Apple extended this "feature" to the iPhone SE. It may have been introduced in 10.2.1, but that doesnt mean it was pushed to all models at the same time. Apple even admitted that they would be extending the coverage of said "feature" to later models in the future. As nobody was aware of this practice until it was uncovered by a user and made public, I had no idea to suspect that my phone was being throttled and assumed it was simply related to the bloating of iOS 11. And maybe it was earlier than that.... I don't objectively know the exact date when my phone started feeling slower, other than the fact that it was feeling laggy for a while.
Regardless of any of that, my phone WAS being throttled at the time of my awareness of said "feature". See previous posts where I posted before and after screenshots. And Apple DID refuse to accept my $79 to replace the battery when I brought it in, insisting the battery was fine. No warning messages from the "Battery section in settings"..... The battery was "A-OK" according to Apple.
It took a PR backlash for the company to convince the tech to make the replacement.
Frustrating and confusing. No excuses for this. Not when customer satisfaction is your core competitive advantage.
Prefer random shutdowns from a naturally failing (it’s the chemistry) battery? Not me.
Completely agree. Just tell me if the battery is failing enough that you handicap my device, and don't give me heartburn when I try to replace it (the battery) with my own money. That's all I ask.
So let's say you take your car in for a service. After getting it back it doesn't seem as peppy as usual. You complain to the Dealership whereapon they inform you "Yeah we reflashed your ECU to reduce horsepower. It'll make your engine last longer". How many of us would be happy with that?
So what are you going to do then, ask the manufacturer to give you a new engine so you can get more life from your vehicle? You're going to ask Apple to give you a new battery aren't you?! Whats the difference?
You don't get it do you? No other manufacturer throttle their devices beside Apple due to battery degrading. People actually upgraded their phone because it ran slow without Apple telling them why. The price of a new battery is a few dollars. The price of a new iPhone is $600-900 or even higher. I would feel ripped off if I was one of the buyer because of the slow down. Trust me, this lawsuit is going to cost them more than a free battery including punitive damage. This was a black eye to Apple and their customers.
Prefer random shutdowns from a naturally failing (it’s the chemistry) battery? Not me.
I didn't know you had the right to speak for everyone. Pretty cool. Yeah, I like spending hundreds of dollars on a new phone because my phone was slowing down vs spending $50 for a new battery which will make my phone run fast again.
Comments
Haha....yeah thats about all people will get if anything and Apple still wins in the end because most likely people will redeem that $5 gift card and spend more than $5 so Apple profits on this ridiculous lawsuit. People will make a big deal from the outcome for a couple of weeks and then its back to business as usual.
So what are you going to do then, ask the manufacturer to give you a new engine so you can get more life from your vehicle? You're going to ask Apple to give you a new battery aren't you?! Whats the difference?
The problem here is not the feature, it’s how it was introduced (or wasn’t introduced.) Just for the sake of argument, can anyone prove that Apple didn’t start throttleing old batteries to encourage users to upgrade, then, once it was exposed, came up with a plausible excuse in attempt to mollify them? Or perhaps they came up with the throttling feature as a legitimite fix for shutdowns, but then intentionally concealed it in the hopes that it would lead more people to replace their phones. I actually do believe that Apple’s intentions were good, but that involves more trust on my part than looking Apple’s actual actions. This site is going to give a very biased sample - most people here are Apple fans and inclined to believe Apple’s good intentions, but that’s not the case with the general public.
Had Apple been more upfront and clear on this, there would be no doubt in anyone’s mind, but by concealing what was happening, they leave things open to interpretation and piss off their customers. (They also would have saved a ton of bad press and the cost of all those $29 battery replacements.)
Coincidentally, I had my 6s in to an Apple store a month and a half ago, I was told the battery was healthy and I didn’t qualify for a replacement. After upgrading iOS, it shows 91% health on the battery, but then it randomly shut down a few days ago and got a message when it started back up. Now it’s running a bit slower but not crashing. Had I not gotten that message, I could easily have assumed that I just needed to get a new phone. The cost of replacing a phone a year earlier than necessary is definitely a harm, IMO
Apple made a tweak to keep the phone from running up against currant limits if the battery was marginal. The change sat around for a year until some mouth breather on Reddit "discovered" it and made a huge stink about this non issue. Then the lawyers smelled a chance to line their pockets and started circling. I honestly believe that Apple didn't publicize this change because they thought of it as too trivial to bother with. Think of it this way: Apple did something that would have the effect of increasing the useful life of their devices. Why didn't they broadcast this on every ad and web page? Because they thought the tweak was too minor, to trivial and in reality would not impact most users. It wasn't worth bothering with. TC and the Board likely never knew about it. This was a bug-fix that was never mentioned outside of the iOS software group.
Regardless of any of that, my phone WAS being throttled at the time of my awareness of said "feature". See previous posts where I posted before and after screenshots. And Apple DID refuse to accept my $79 to replace the battery when I brought it in, insisting the battery was fine. No warning messages from the "Battery section in settings"..... The battery was "A-OK" according to Apple.
It took a PR backlash for the company to convince the tech to make the replacement.
Frustrating and confusing. No excuses for this. Not when customer satisfaction is your core competitive advantage.
I didn't know you had the right to speak for everyone. Pretty cool. Yeah, I like spending hundreds of dollars on a new phone because my phone was slowing down vs spending $50 for a new battery which will make my phone run fast again.