Apple compares iOS updates to kitchen renovations in motion to dismiss iPhone slowdown law...
Apple cannot be liable for slowing down iPhones via iOS updates, according to a motion to dismiss a lawsuit concerning efforts to prolong an iPhone's battery life by reducing its performance, with the company arguing the suit is the equivalent of suing a building contractor for upgrading a kitchen.
The battery and internals of an iPhone 6s
In the 50-page filing with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California from January 24, San Jose Division, Apple's motion seeks to dismiss one of a number of lawsuits that surfaced in the United States, following the company's admittance it temporarily slowed down processes on older iPhones when a worn and potentially malfunctioning battery is detected.
It is argued by the defendants they were made to install software updates that included elements to fix the battery problems by reducing the processor's performance, which had the aim of preventing the battery from running completely flat and from randomly shutting down. The defendants believe they were misled by Apple, which is accused of slipping the slow-down functions in an iOS update without providing adequate warning to users of its effects.
Arguing the plaintiffs failed to explain "what is false or misleading" about Apple's statements, Apple also notes the change in argument from its opponents by seizing upon the statement the "battery is designed to retain up to 80 percent of its original capacity at 500 complete charge cycles," adding it believes it cannot be used to "wring an affirmative misrepresentation claim" either.
Apple "had no duty to disclose the facts regarding software capability and battery capacity," the company asserts, on the basis it does not cause an "unreasonable safety hazard," and that there is a limit to the duty a company has to offer such disclosure.
Under a section of the filing claiming "Plaintiffs fail to plead that Apple fraudulently induced plaintiffs to damage their devices," Apple argues that the updates were installed with the user's consent, and that means they agreed to changes the software would make. The plaintiffs are also attacked for stating they "did not give permission" but at the same time provides proof they in fact did, via the iOS license agreement.
In one notable element, the pushback on alleged "damage" caused by the software updates is reasoned with an analogy about kitchen installations. The plaintiffs are likened to "homeowners who have let a building contractor into their homes to upgrade their kitchens, thus giving permission for the contractor to demolish and change parts of the houses."
Since the plaintiffs provided permission, this would be the kitchen analogy equivalent of the contractor causing excessive damage as part of the installation but it remaining within contract, rather than as trespass. "Plaintiffs' consent defeats each of their computer intrusion claims," the filing adds.
According to the filing, the court will be holding a hearing on the lawsuit on March 7, with Judge Edward J. Davila presiding over the matter.
Since the announcement, Apple has offered affected customers a reduced-cost out-of-warranty battery replacement, which changed the battery in a user's iPhone for $29. Under the program, 11 million iPhone batteries were replaced, 9 million more than average under the previous $79 pricing.
The battery and internals of an iPhone 6s
In the 50-page filing with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California from January 24, San Jose Division, Apple's motion seeks to dismiss one of a number of lawsuits that surfaced in the United States, following the company's admittance it temporarily slowed down processes on older iPhones when a worn and potentially malfunctioning battery is detected.
It is argued by the defendants they were made to install software updates that included elements to fix the battery problems by reducing the processor's performance, which had the aim of preventing the battery from running completely flat and from randomly shutting down. The defendants believe they were misled by Apple, which is accused of slipping the slow-down functions in an iOS update without providing adequate warning to users of its effects.
Arguing the plaintiffs failed to explain "what is false or misleading" about Apple's statements, Apple also notes the change in argument from its opponents by seizing upon the statement the "battery is designed to retain up to 80 percent of its original capacity at 500 complete charge cycles," adding it believes it cannot be used to "wring an affirmative misrepresentation claim" either.
Apple "had no duty to disclose the facts regarding software capability and battery capacity," the company asserts, on the basis it does not cause an "unreasonable safety hazard," and that there is a limit to the duty a company has to offer such disclosure.
Under a section of the filing claiming "Plaintiffs fail to plead that Apple fraudulently induced plaintiffs to damage their devices," Apple argues that the updates were installed with the user's consent, and that means they agreed to changes the software would make. The plaintiffs are also attacked for stating they "did not give permission" but at the same time provides proof they in fact did, via the iOS license agreement.
In one notable element, the pushback on alleged "damage" caused by the software updates is reasoned with an analogy about kitchen installations. The plaintiffs are likened to "homeowners who have let a building contractor into their homes to upgrade their kitchens, thus giving permission for the contractor to demolish and change parts of the houses."
Since the plaintiffs provided permission, this would be the kitchen analogy equivalent of the contractor causing excessive damage as part of the installation but it remaining within contract, rather than as trespass. "Plaintiffs' consent defeats each of their computer intrusion claims," the filing adds.
According to the filing, the court will be holding a hearing on the lawsuit on March 7, with Judge Edward J. Davila presiding over the matter.
Since the announcement, Apple has offered affected customers a reduced-cost out-of-warranty battery replacement, which changed the battery in a user's iPhone for $29. Under the program, 11 million iPhone batteries were replaced, 9 million more than average under the previous $79 pricing.
Comments
That's not even close to being an accurate description of what Apple did. Apple updated the OS to monitor and smooth out large spikes in voltage demand to the battery that could potentially cause an auto shutdown of the phone. Those voltage spikes do NOT only occur with a "worn or potentially malfunctioning battery". They can also occur when charge level is low or when the phone is exposed to cold temperatures. In other words, the majority of the situations where an auto shutdown might need to be prevented have absolutely nothing to do with battery age or wear.
Where we differ is where the majority situation line lies. Just because it can happen in cold weather, doesn't make that the dominant situation. Most users got the warning primarily because of an old battery which shifts the voltage curve, and aggravates every other fail state that could be tripped by the software.
And no one has ever had a contractor come back to their house three years later and tweek their dishwasher to work less because that contractor thought that was something the owner wanted now that some time has passed--without asking permission and entering through a backdoor (when does Apple say they are going to do an update? After 11pm?) in the middle of the night.
It's like Apple thinks they still have an ownership stake in something that they sold 3 or 4 years ago.
It's worth mentioning that the way Apple is micromanaged by Tim and Jony; they would have been aware and signed off on this.
That's one of the reasons that rushing out to get a new battery to "speed up" your iPhone was entirely pointless unless the battery was already around 80% capacity and essentially EOD. New batteries can't avoid voltage supply problems at low charge or in cold conditions.
A faulty, leaking fuel tank analogy could also apply, where the pilot throttles back all engines to reduce fuel consumption because of the leak. The plane flies more slowly, arrives late, but again, everyone is safe and living. What would the other option be? Continue to fly at full speed, draining the faulty fuel tanks, crashing the plane in the middle of the Atlantic, and everyone is dead? Would you rather go slower and arrive late or continue on at full speed, ignoring the fault, and never arriving? I know what my choice would be. Faults happen, but faults do not have to lead to failures, or death, as the case may be.
And yes, I do fully expect Apple to implement fault tolerance and failure avoidance as part of every product's Update and maintenance cycle. That's exactly why I let them update my Apple products.
My guess is most folks wouldn't have read it anyway even if Apple had told them so in general it wouldn't have mattered.
Li-ion batteries really, really don't like being fully discharged from a physics and chemistry standpoint. That 20% gap keeps the user from getting too low, and causing other problems.
It has been proven in studies that the average Joe does not look at those user agreements before clicking OK. So for Apple to point to those and say that they were signed is not a great argument.
Also the crux of the argument between the plaintives is not that Apple throttled the phones, it is that it didn’t give the owner of the iPhone the plain choice of continuing to use the phone in the throttled state or get it fixed with a battery replacement. That is where Apple went wrong and is why they had such a PR disaster resulting in the battery replacement program and this lawsuit.
In short, the reason may have been beneficial and even justified, but the implementation was deceptive.
Because crybabies didn't understand what was happening with the update (that is Apple's fault) they felt butthurt and claimed that Apple was deliberately trying to force sales of battery replacements and phones. So they wanted to sue. Of course they did.
If I don't owe you an explanation and I don't lie to you, there's no deception. Just because you believe you were deceived doesn't mean you were.
There was also the issue of some phones going from a moderate charged ~50% to 0, without stopping at 20% and providing a warning. In some instances the problem wasn't reproduced at the Apple Store and the battery capacity was higher than 80% so Apple didn't see the problem and didn't replace the batteries under warranty.
* Batteries wear out. However you approach it, that's what happens. Disadvantaged batteries (eg cold) lose their effective charge very quickly: photographers and others have known that for years and it's chemistry, not commercial interest.
* "It is argued by the defendants they were made to install software updates that included elements to fix the battery problems ... which had the aim of preventing the battery from running completely flat and from randomly shutting down." Or to rephrase that, to make the phone work in situations where it otherwise wouldn't (including because it's old and marginal on being worn out). You can't give some people something helpful - I despair.