Apple's decision to 'break' FaceTime in iOS 6 injured owners of older iPhones, class actio...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited August 2019
Apple is facing another class action lawsuit over its supposed decision to render FaceTime inoperable in iOS 6 as part of efforts to save money on a data services. The strategy allegedly forced users who relied on the video conferencing product little choice but to update to iOS 7, including iPhone 4 series owners whose older handsets strained to run the latest operating system.

FaceTime


Detailed in a complaint lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the class action seeks to represent iPhone 4 or iPhone 4S owners who were negatively impacted by Apple's alleged actions.

Apple debuted FaceTime in 2010 as a video conferencing service that connected two then-current iPhone 4 devices using specialized backend technology. The protocol relied on two methods of connectivity in a peer-to-peer technology that transferred audio and video data over a direct connection or a so-called "relay method" that relied on third-party servers to do the same.

Relayed FaceTime calls were more costly than their peer-to-peer counterparts as Apple had to pay a server provider, in this case Akamai Technologies, for bandwidth used.

According to court documents, relay calls accounted for about 5% to 10% percent of all FaceTime traffic prior to Nov. 7, 2012, but usage quickly spiked after Apple's peer-to-peer technology was found to infringe on patents owned by VirnetX. Following a jury trial, Apple was ordered to pay $368 million in damages -- later reduced to $302.4 million -- and cease implementation of direct FaceTime connectivity methods.

Apple quickly began to rack up millions of dollars in server charges as a result of the shift to third-party relay technology. Testimony from a 2016 retrial of the VirnetX ruling put fees at about $50 million between a six-month period in 2013. The company sought to decrease dependency on Akamai, going so far as to circulate an email with the subject "Ways to Reduce Relay Usage."

A solution was discovered in a new peer-to-peer technique that did not infringe on VirnetX patents. That technology was baked into iOS 7 in 2013, seemingly mitigating the relay fee debacle. Unfortunately for Apple, customers with older handsets, named as iPhone 4 and 4S in the suit, were unwilling to upgrade from iOS 6. Customers and media reported older hardware attempting to run iOS 7 suffered slowdowns, random freezes and other issues, with many claiming legacy devices were simply not up to the task of running the next-generation OS.

In an alleged bid to force users onto iOS 7, Apple supposedly implemented a "FaceTime Break" on April 16, 2014, and blamed the sudden incompatibility on a bug, the lawsuit claims.

Internal correspondence between Apple engineers suggests the company intentionally disabled FaceTime to skirt rising relay fees.

"Hey, guys. I'm looking at the Akamai contract for next year. I understand we did something in April around iOS 6 to reduce relay utilization," Apple engineering manager Patrick Gates said in an email to employees. The message was met with a response from engineer Gokul Thirumalai, who said, "It was a big user of relay bandwidth. We broke iOS 6, and the only way to get FaceTime working again is to upgrade to iOS 7."

Whether due to an actual bug or an introduced flaw, FaceTime became unusable for millions of iPhone users. Customers were presented with one of three options, according to the suit: remain on iOS 6 without access to FaceTime; update to iOS 7 and face potential performance degradation; or purchase a new iPhone capable of running the new OS without ill effect.

This week's suit mirrors a California class action complaint lodged in 2017. Apple is still fighting that case after Judge Lucy Koh granted class certification in July 2017, but was dealt a blow last week when its motion for summary judgment was denied. Koh's denial allows the claims to move to trial and effectively opens the door for similar class actions to be filed in other jurisdictions.

The Florida complaint endeavors to find Apple violated Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and is liable for trespass to personal property. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages and court fees.

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    If tis is true, there is no excuse. apple is in the wrong. that's terrible. I love apple, but dang. That is horrid. Apple could make the new way backwards compatible without issue. No one should HAVE to buy new phone (if your phone wasn't able to upgrade to iOS7) just to use what had always worked. 

    Can't stand Koh, but this decision made by Apple is just poor. They are usually great about thinking of their customers - even past ones. Hope they fix this. 
    edited August 2019 airnerd
  • Reply 2 of 21
    xp17xp17 Posts: 15member
    I don't know any company that announce the end of support for old technology and had problems because of it. No one guarantees that everything will work forever. Apple gave a solution - iOS7
    StrangeDayslolliverviclauyycflyingdpjedwards87llamacurtis hannahuraharagilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 21
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    Pathetic lawsuit. Software doesn't last forever nor should it. 
    lolliverviclauyycflyingdpjedwards87llamauraharawatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 4 of 21
    The lawsuit is over the fact that old iPhones lost support because they didn't update there software. Are there any complaints of iPhone 4s and 4 owners running iOS 5 losing youtube support? If they want FaceTime so badly, they should upgrade their devices, and not complain that the device lost 10% speed. What about they update to iOS 9.3.6 before the iPhone 4S's lose GPS functionally on November 3rd because their running out of date. Or are they going to complain that Apple is forcing them to update to keep that feature and Apple shouldn't do updates 8 years after the phones came out?
    StrangeDaysAppleExposedlolliverviclauyycjedwards87razorpitwatto_cobraxp17jony0
  • Reply 5 of 21
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,844member
    9secondkox2 said:
    That is horrid. Apple could make the new way backwards compatible without issue. No one should HAVE to buy new phone (if your phone wasn't able to upgrade to iOS7) just to use what had always worked.
    Ah yes, according to you the FT fix could have been made backwards compatible without issue, so that’s why they didn’t do it. Uh no, if it could have been done without issue, it would have as that would have been the easiest solution for everyone. There very likely were technical reasons why it couldn’t deploy to iOS 6, other than nefarious waxed mustache twirling from Apple. 

    No one has to buy a new phone, they were free to upgrade to the version of the software that functioned. As noted new versions of software can lose features, like when the second-gen Apple TV lost its YouTube feature after a time. 
    edited August 2019 MacQclolliverjedwards87razorpitcornchipcurtis hannah
  • Reply 6 of 21
    rs0212rs0212 Posts: 25member
    Well they did release a fix for iOS 6, but only for the iPod that wasn't compatible with iOS 7. 
    airnerd
  • Reply 7 of 21
    iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S are past their support date.  Case closed...next.


    jedwards87razorpitcurtis hannahgilly33watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 21
    Why is this lawsuit happening now?  It's been *years* since iOS 7 was introduced — and years since the iPhone 4 first ran into this problem.
    curtis hannahwatto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 21
    The real problem is that Apple did not bother to optimize its new operating systems for the oldest devices that could run it. This was partly intentional as they knew it would encourage users to upgrade to the newest expensive iOS devices. An iPhone 4s that felt fast running iOS 5 would feel dog slow running iOS 7. On the other hand, a Samsung phone may never receive an update to a major Android version and if it did it could be over a year after that version was released so pick your poison.
  • Reply 10 of 21
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member
    If tis is true, there is no excuse. apple is in the wrong. that's terrible. I love apple, but dang. That is horrid. Apple could make the new way backwards compatible without issue. No one should HAVE to buy new phone (if your phone wasn't able to upgrade to iOS7) just to use what had always worked. 

    Can't stand Koh, but this decision made by Apple is just poor. They are usually great about thinking of their customers - even past ones. Hope they fix this. 
    iOS 7 is compatible with every device that supported FaceTime. There was no reason not to install a FREE update to continue to use a FREE service. 

    This lawsuit will be dismissed by December. 
    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 21
    flydogflydog Posts: 1,123member
    The real problem is that Apple did not bother to optimize its new operating systems for the oldest devices that could run it. This was partly intentional as they knew it would encourage users to upgrade to the newest expensive iOS devices. An iPhone 4s that felt fast running iOS 5 would feel dog slow running iOS 7. On the other hand, a Samsung phone may never receive an update to a major Android version and if it did it could be over a year after that version was released so pick your poison.
    Pure speculation, and proven to be false time and time again. 
    cornchipcurtis hannahwatto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 21
    The devices that support FaceTime are still perfectly capable of using it by just updating the software. FaceTime isn't broken for any of the devices that support it, it's only broken if you don't update... and if you don't update, you should expect stuff to stop functioning.
    cornchipcurtis hannahJohan.Gwatto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 21
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,805unconfirmed, member
    I can't find where anyone was "injured".

    Only Apple can birth such sensationalist reporting. "FaceTime users were injured!!"
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 14 of 21
    If tis is true, there is no excuse. apple is in the wrong. that's terrible. I love apple, but dang. That is horrid. Apple could make the new way backwards compatible without issue. No one should HAVE to buy new phone (if your phone wasn't able to upgrade to iOS7) just to use what had always worked. 

    Can't stand Koh, but this decision made by Apple is just poor. They are usually great about thinking of their customers - even past ones. Hope they fix this. 
    The entire reason I have an Apple phone is because the 1 and a few months old Android I had was incapable of being upgraded to the latest version of Android OS. Granted, at this point it was a good number of years ago but I have friends that buy Android and a brand new but not top of the line phone has trouble running some apps, and pretty much any Android that is 3 or 4 years old is stuck at whatever OS it is on. Even if Apple is no better than that shouldn’t the same rules and laws apply? My iPhone 6 lasted around 6 years and it was the screen that failed not the ability to load a new OS. You aren’t guaranteed that a phone will accept a new OS forever.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/forums.androidcentral.com/general-news-discussion/734146-how-many-years-do-android-phones-get-os-updates.html%3famp
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 21
    sergiozsergioz Posts: 338member
    I am so upset with all these cellphones. All I want is my old rotary phone back. I like the way things were back in the day. Things worked right? Who do you think I should sue the fruit company or the Dumdung?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 21
    gilly33gilly33 Posts: 433member
    We are truly becoming ridiculous in this country. Maybe folk should sue Microsoft for stopping support of Windows XP or I should sue Motorola for not updating the OS on my first Android phone. It informed users that they had to purchase a new phone. But hey Apple has deep pockets and then there is judge Lucy Koh. So there is money to be made. Sick of whiners!
    edited August 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 21
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,842moderator
    Hmm, here’s what I’d do if I’m Apple.  I’d look in my database to see who is ‘injured.’  That would be ONLY those who acquired their iPhone 4 or 4S before FT was disabled on iOS 6.  So that does NOT include anyone who acquired their new or previously owned iPhone 4/4S since FT was disabled.   If you bought an iPhone 4/4S used in 2015, running iOS 6, for example, you don’t qualify as being injured.  Because at the time of your acquisition you had no expectation that FT under iOS 6 at that time.  

    I’m guessing the number of people who today are using a 4/4S, running iOS 6 or earlier, who have owned the phone since before FT was broken, is a relatively small number.  And Apple could just gift these folks the latest iPhone SE it either still has in stock or could crank up a short manufacturing run on.  Everyone is happy...  except the lawyers.  
    edited August 2019 watto_cobra
  • Reply 18 of 21
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,239member
    This supports the case that stock apps not be tied so tightly to the OS. FaceTime should be updateable as an app (since it is!) instead of updating the entire operating system. But I know it's more complicated than that.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 19 of 21
    […] if you don't update, you should expect stuff to stop functioning.
    I should EXPECT features that works now to stop working at some point? Why would I expect that? If a feature works today, how and why would it stop working tomorrow?

    if you made no changes at all to your phone but it suddenly lost the ability to send text messages, would you think that’s to be expected?
    edited August 2019
  • Reply 20 of 21
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    I can't find where anyone was "injured".

    Only Apple can birth such sensationalist reporting. "FaceTime users were injured!!"
    “Injured” is a legal term here, not a sensationalist headline. It refers not only to physical or emotional injury, but also loss of financial or material things. Thus, the injury alleged in this case is loss of a valuable function on the iPhone. 
Sign In or Register to comment.