Nothing wrong with the iPhone design. Unless you want to use your knowledge as an electrical engineer and explain (in explicit detail) what the design faults were. And don't be afraid to use all the big words - as someone who works in this field I'm sure I'll have no trouble comprehending your explanation.You omitted the best option. The phone should be designed better so that it's power consumption spikes do not force it to shut down (or slow down) when the battery is still at >30% capacity. That's the problem with Ax processors that are very powerful but also have very high power consumption spikes for which the power delivery systems in older iPhone models were not properly designed.
[automerge]1583169876[/automerge]
That's just common sense. Are you suggesting that Apple had a 100% case and still decided to give their customers a gift?
Common sense? If the case was so strong, then why didn't the lawyers keep fighting for a higher payout, instead of caving in and settling?
Take the recent Google Pixel settlement. Users of those devices are eligible for up to $500. Think about that. Up to $500 per device. Applied to the volumes Apple sells of the iPhone they'd be looking at a $10 billion settlement. Are you telling me those lawyers are so stupid/incompetent that they overlooked that possibility and settled so quickly for a fraction of a possibly massive payout?
Common sense indicates the case wasn't that strong and users weren't impacted (hence the measly $25 per device payout). The only reason the payout is $500 million is because Apple sells a LOT of iPhones.