Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I’d rather have my iPhone operating than shutting down randomly, so never had a problem with this.

I didn't either, but I have an iPhone 6s Plus that is still running like a champ. Either they stopped the issue and it really wasn't an issue for me, or since they knew it would be an issue for people now, they made other adjustments to prevent the crashing.

Either way, win-win for me!
 
Apple knows you by your iTunes account. They know what devices you have. They know when they've been sleeping. They know if your iPhone has been good or bad...

Yeah, sure, and they will waste their time to send all those who registered their Iphones a $25 check, dream on and remember that still does not cover all of the phones in question that were purchased.
[automerge]1583177240[/automerge]
They just credited the money to my Amazon account. The first I knew about it was when I showed a positive balance and a dialog box popped up on my Kindle.

Read the language of this settlement, the pay out depends on how many people sign up, if it was based on the actual sales numbers, it would be for pennies.
 
I've got an old iPhone 6 running iOS 9.3.5 and this version of iOS doesn't have the throttling "feature" that was snuck in on iOS 10. The phone is still on its original battery (1386 Loadcycles) and the battery health is in the low 90s.

On cold mornings (below 45°) if my phone was left out and is that cold, if I boot it up in the morning, it has unexpectedly crashed a couple times due to the battery being weak. But it has never crashed (unexpected shutdown) when it's warm.

From a user's perspective, I'd NEVER want my iPhone to be permanently throttled as was implemented sneakily by Apple in iOS 10. Id much rather have a rare crash than permanent slowdown.
It only slows down when you push it to it's maximum capacity. Your old iPhone 6 does not have enough difference in power usage between idle and maximum load to see the problem. Newer phones turn off much of the GPU and CPU until needed. They also clock them down when only being used minimally. This lets them sip power very slowly when they are not doing anything and run very fast when needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Dude, they just admitted they were at least $500M wrong. What other proof do you need? Besides, speaking of "better communications". It was a stealth change. There were no communication whatsoever until people discovered the problem. Apple clearly hoped that they could hide the issue.
$500M is the max this can go...and Apple would gladly pay it to be done. Like I said, it's pocket change and they can move on.

I don't think Apple wanted to hide anything and this doesn't prove they did. All this proves is they are willing to settle for this number, which is very, very low.
[automerge]1583177403[/automerge]
The dollar figure per iPhone tells you this is nothing. Just like the $15 people got for "antennagate". Dollar payouts are proportional to the amount of suffering/inconvenience people had to put up with. The $25 payout proves this was only a minor issue for people.
Like I said, a big nothing for all and a waste of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG and I7guy
The throttling is not the issue, it’s apples vague communication. No one knew the battery was the issue and could be fixed with a swap.

It’s a sneaky move by Apple and it’s good they got caught.
Vague communication? They never told anyone about it until they got caught. Even Joe Rogan thought it was dirty of apple to pull this stunt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: V_Man
Vague communication? They never told anyone about it until they got caught. Even Joe Rogan thought it was dirty of apple to pull this stunt.
Yes I agree, but it was apparently hinted at as “battery optimization” in one of OS release notes which most people don’t read.
 
Every company and every worker is out for the money. Naive to even have to point that out. It’s WHAT you’re willing to do for it. Thats’s the chasm.
It’s business. You do what you need to do. Morals are non existent in business
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: rp2011
It’s business. You do what you need to do. Morals are non existent in business
Very true. It's all about the numbers. I just wished people realize it more instead of backing their favorite companies. For me, they all want my money, so the ones who makes the best stuff gets my money. No loyalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and V_Man
They will probably send you a check for 53 cents automatically.
I think the check is somewhere in the $20-$30 range, actually. And may not be automatically sent, rather you have to click a link or return a card, in order to get it sent.
[automerge]1583183143[/automerge]
I do not think anyone has a problem with that but you have to tell the customer you are doing it. That is where Apple went wrong. They tried to hide it instead of being open about it.
Agreed, except for the word, "tried". I don't think they went to great lengths to hide it, it just didn't occur to them to publicize it, because their nature/culture is to be quiet about things "behind the scenes". It would behoove them to be more upfront in situations like this.
 
This is sad. When a phone has an older battery and tries to pull more amps than the battery can provide, the phone has three choices. The first is, turn the phone off. The second is, slow the phone down a bit so it pulls less amperage. The third is, let the battery explode like a thermite grenade. Of the three, option two is the least disruptive.

These three options are due to a defective design in the first place. Almost every other phone simply saw reduced runtime between charges. I had both a 3GS and a 5 previously and they worked fine for years even as the battery would drain completely before the end of the day. Random shutdowns after less than two years of use when the phone was showing 50% or more battery life left is unacceptable.

Apple put a battery in the iPhone 6 and later that they knew was dropping voltage significantly under high use conditions to the point the processor became unstable. Rather than admit to this, they sneakily put in the throttling under the guise of "performance improvements." Such is the consequences of the "thinner at all cost" philosophy.

The first option should always be to design a product that will meet consumers expectations. Apple did not do this so the best remaining option under those circumstances would be to throttle the device; however, it needed to be done in a transparent manner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech and mi7chy
This is a direct result of Apple's sometimes opaque communications style.

Tell people what you're up to, and why, and maybe even have some arcane way of opting out of this throttling, and not only would most people not care, but they'd be appreciative of the effort.

Be sneaky and take a "my way or the highway" approach and this is what you get.

Can you imagine the keynote? That would have been one hell of a hard sell even for Apple marketing to try say ‘hey we’re going to slow down older phones when the battery is old, but yes you can turn it off’.
 
The issue was not Apple’s programming the feature but not informing customers of the rationale behind the feature and to explain any decrease in performance, to give a costumer an educated choice to either keep things as is or get a battery replacement
I think more of an issue was your choice to forget about the humble comma in such a long sentence. One use of said comma? Really?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tozovac
Anyone who still insists Apple’s actions were harmless is an enemy to those who buy Apple’s goods. Your company worship isn’t synonymous with brand fandom and the ideals this fan community was founded on.

I could repeat, yet again, the obstacles and denial that customers encountered when they approached Apple after the revelation, but I won’t waste time with those who rightly deserved to be called shills.

i believe in free speech and admire wisdom from other perspectives, but I won’t stomach self-appointed shills who applaud or defend corporate priorities. I’m going to start using this forum’s ignore member feature, and I ask those shills to do the same with me.
 
I still use my 6S and my wife still has her SE in a drawer somewhere. $50 for filling out a form ain’t bad.
Any news on how we actually acquire this?
 
People prefer of having their phones turn off at low battery levels? Jesus this class action is stupid.
Yes, I do. I rarely use more than 50% of the battery's charge in a single day, but I do notice when things slow down and get throttled. I prefer to have my iPhone running at 100% when I use it.
 
What does this mean? They will do anything including underhanded stuff to get you to part with a dollar, even to the extent of damaging their reputation?

I never said that. it means Apple wants your money. Nothing else. They don’t care about you. You are $$ to them. That’s all
 
  • Love
Reactions: PC_tech
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.