Apple Being Sued for 'Purposefully Slowing Down Older iPhone Models' [Updated]

[NT1440]

They covered up a problem.

Fact iPhone batteries cannot run iPhone CPUs at full speed after about a year, or some number of cycles.
Fact Apple found out that when that happens after phones shipped.
Fact Apple slowed down phones without telling people after those phones were purchased.

Apple did not solve an issue, solving the issue would mean that your phone would perform similar to what it did like when it was purchased, they hid an issue.

Thank you for being an almost literal example of the phenomenon I was describing.

Where is all this nonsense “one year” narrative coming from? I keep seeing it, but never an explanation of where it originated.

Again I ask, ARE YOU UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT PHONES ARE BEING CONSTANTLY THROTTLED INSTEAD OF DYNAMICALLY?

 

[theMaccer]

What would I get in this class action lawsuit?

$0.39?

 

[opfreak]

Thank you for being an almost literal example of the phenomenon I was describing.

Where is all this nonsense “one year” narrative coming from? I keep seeing it, but never an explanation of where it originated.

Again I ask, ARE YOU UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT PHONES ARE BEING CONSTANTLY THROTTLED INSTEAD OF DYNAMICALLY?

Ughh, it happens after some period of time, some number of cycles. Are you being obtuse on purpose.

I already answered your question.

Yes, the phones are constantly throttled until you replace the battery. All test so far has shown this condition, if you have proof otherwise, please present it.

 

[NT1440]

Based on the results of the tests, throttling is permeant unless your replace your battery. Do you have proof that shows otherwise?

...based on benchmarks? So you understand that a phone is permanently throttled because a benchmark, which BY DEFINITION PUTS THE HEAVIEST LOAD ON THE SYSTEM POSSIBLE, says so?

It’s going to throttle almost every time you run a benchmark because the throttling occurs when the CPU draw is higher than what the battery can provide at that exact time. A benchmark is supposed to max out the system, by definition.

So no **** the benchmark will show it, it’s one of the exact scenarios (high cpu usage) the throttling was designed to kick in for.

The circular logic to your claim is breathtaking.
[doublepost=1514243996][/doublepost]

Ughh, it happens after some period of time, some number of cycles. Are you being obtuse on purpose.

“Some” and “some number” are awfully intangible criteria for your concrete assertion, no?

You can’t privide specifics, but can draw an open-and-shut conclusion from it?

 

[Puddled]

No, the phone isn’t obsolete just because it’s a little slower on some benchmarks. Obsolete would be if they did nothing to combat the degradation of lithium ion batteries. Or are you arguing Android does Planned Obselesence because they also clock down the CPU to deal with ththe same issue?

.

There is no argument to be had with regards to the wording or terms used in this argument. Apple have straight out confirmed that planned obsolescence does indeed exist and is alive and well in IOS.

All this thread is doing is trying to figure out if it was done by design or by stupidity.

I don't think Apple are stupid.

 

[opfreak]

...based on benchmarks? So you understand that a phone is permanently throttled because a benchmark, which BY DEFINITION PUTS THE HEAVIEST LOAD ON THE SYSTEM POSSIBLE, says so?

It’s going to throttle almost every time you run a benchmark because the throttling occurs when the CPU draw is higher than what the battery can provide at that exact time. A benchmark is supposed to max out the system, by definition.

So no **** the benchmark will show it, it’s one of the exact scenarios (high cpu usage) the throttling was designed to kick in for.

The circular logic to your claim is breathtaking.
[doublepost=1514243996][/doublepost]
“Some” and “some number” are awfully intangible criteria for your concrete assertion, no?

You can’t privide specifics, but can draw an open-and-shut conclusion from it?

You have nothing but what faith in applie?

If facts don't convience you nothing will.

Fact - new iphones don't throttle benchmarks.
Fact older iphones do throttle benchmarks.

So you have nothing, but claim everyone else is wrong.

 

[Act3]

From your posts it appears that you’re under the impression that the throttling is permanent rather than kicking in dynamically when needed, am I off in that reading? What is your current understanding of how his works?

I can tell you first hand how it works from experience....

it seems "permanent" until battery replaced. Seen it in 2 different 6s phones. One running at 600 and one at 911 Mhz, speed was restored to expected 1848Mhz after new battery. The throttling is based on current health of battery. Phone would be sitting idle, no apps running in background other than CPUDasherX, and it would indicate 911 Mhz. Does it crank it up to 1848 Mhz when under load? I don't think so or geekbench numbers would not suffer from this throttling.
[doublepost=1514244650][/doublepost]

What would I get in this class action lawsuit?

$0.39?

or Apple changes their ways. Most of us could care less of a monetary settlement but would rather just have a superior product. We pay more for Apple for a reason.
[doublepost=1514244812][/doublepost]

...based on benchmarks? So you understand that a phone is permanently throttled because a benchmark, which BY DEFINITION PUTS THE HEAVIEST LOAD ON THE SYSTEM POSSIBLE, says so?

It’s going to throttle almost every time you run a benchmark because the throttling occurs when the CPU draw is higher than what the battery can provide at that exact time. A benchmark is supposed to max out the system, by definition.

So no **** the benchmark will show it, it’s one of the exact scenarios (high cpu usage) the throttling was designed to kick in for.

The circular logic to your claim is breathtaking.

So throttling a CPU during the most heavy tasks is most productive? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Whats the point of having the most powerful mobile CPU if you can't power it properly? That's where they got caught with pants down. All these claims of being X times as fast as previous iPhone versions as selling points but no disclaimer to the unknowing consumer.

 

[citysnaps]

How much slower is ok by you? 20%? 50%? 90%? After about a year.

Do you have proof of this (android slowing down CPUs over time) I want to see something similar to what geekbench released.

That much reduction in 1 year? Where did that come from?

If you're trying that hard to make a point, go for the gusto. Maybe: "How much slower is ok by you? 20%? 50%? 90%? After about 3 months."

 

[redkamel]

About time. What they are doing is highly unethical. Their involvement with my property stops after payment.

...except for the OS updated you downloaded.
[doublepost=1514244996][/doublepost]

I can tell you first hand how it works from experience....

it seems "permanent" until battery replaced. Seen it in 2 different 6s phones. One running at 600 and one at 911 Mhz, speed was restored to expected 1848Mhz after new battery. The throttling is based on current health of battery. Phone would be sitting idle, no apps running in background other than CPUDasherX, and it would indicate 911 Mhz. Does it crank it up to 1848 Mhz when under load? I don't think so or geekbench numbers would not suffer from this throttling.
[doublepost=1514244650][/doublepost]

or Apple changes their ways. Most of us could care less of a monetary settlement but would rather just have a superior product. We pay more for Apple for a reason.
[doublepost=1514244812][/doublepost]

So throttling a CPU during the most heavy tasks is most productive? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Whats the point of having the most powerful mobile CPU if you can't power it properly?

Its more productive because the phone operates for longer. Its faster to drive at 60mph than go to 100mph and then get pulled over.

 

[Act3]

Its more productive because the phone operates for longer. Its faster to drive at 60mph than go to 100mph and then get pulled over.

well gee, I guess faster CPU's are a waste of money

 

[NT1440]

You have nothing but what faith in applie?

If facts don't convience you nothing will.

Fact - new iphones don't throttle benchmarks.
Fact older iphones do throttle benchmarks.

So you have nothing, but claim everyone else is wrong.

All I did was point out how your test of constant throttling is not a test of constant throttling, sorry your logic doesn’t hold up.

 

[opfreak]

That much reduction in 1 year? Where did that come from?

If you're trying that hard to make a point, go for the gusto. Maybe: "How much slower is ok by you? 20%? 50%? 90%? After about 3 months."

Its about a year for the number of cycles to degrade the battery.

But lets play your game, how much reduction is OK by you when the battery degrees?

After all you seem to be ok with your phone slowing down. 1% each charge cycle?
[doublepost=1514245762][/doublepost]

All I did was point out how your test of constant throttling is not a test of constant throttling, sorry your logic doesn’t hold up.

Do you have a better test showing otherwise? All testing shows a permeant slow down. If you have evidence that's not occurring please present it.

 

[NT1440]

I can tell you first hand how it works from experience....

it seems "permanent" until battery replaced. Seen it in 2 different 6s phones. One running at 600 and one at 911 Mhz, speed was restored to expected 1848Mhz after new battery. The throttling is based on current health of battery. Phone would be sitting idle, no apps running in background other than CPUDasherX, and it would indicate 911 Mhz. Does it crank it up to 1848 Mhz when under load? I don't think so or geekbench numbers would not suffer from this throttling.

Ok this is getting nonsensical. IF your battery is degraded to the point that the throttling mechanism is introduced OF COURSE A BENCHMARK IS GOING TO SHOW THROTTLING, a benchmark is by definition the highest load you can put on the device. The very act of running the benchmark is going to TRIGGER the throttling because the device is running full out.

A BENCHMARK test is ONLY proof that the throttling will happen WHEN RUNNING THE BENCHMARK, it’s NOT a test of normal usage throttling.
[doublepost=1514246028][/doublepost]

Do you have a better test showing otherwise? All testing shows a permeant slow down. If you have evidence that's not occurring please present it.

No I don’t have a test of normal usage throttling, but again, throttling during a benchmark is only proving that the device will throttle during a benchmark.

I don’t know how to make it clearer that your “proof” of CONSTANT throttling is only proof of Apples mechanism doing exactly what it was designed to do: throttle under high load when the battery is too degraded to provide the proper output.

The lack of a test for normal usage throttling IS NOT PROOF OF CONSTANT THROTTLING. Don’t pretend it is.

 

[Act3]

Ok this is getting nonsensical. IF your battery is degraded to the point that the throttling mechanism is introduced OF COURSE A BENCHMARK IS GOING TO SHOW THROTTLING, a benchmark is by definition the highest load you can put on the device. The very act of running the benchmark is going to TRIGGER the throttling because the device is running full out.

A BENCHMARK test is ONLY proof that the throttling will happen WHEN RUNNING THE BENCHMARK, it’s NOT a test of normal usage throttling.
[doublepost=1514246028][/doublepost]
No I don’t have a test of normal usage throttling, but again, throttling during a benchmark is only proving that the device will throttle during a benchmark.

I don’t know how to make it clearer that your “proof” of CONSTANT throttling is only proof of Apples mechanism doing exactly what it was designed to do: throttle under high load when the battery is too degraded to provide the proper output.

you do realize CPUDasherX is not a benchmark program, right? It is a system information utility. It shows the status of the device, including the current CPU frequency.

Its only nonsensical when you don't understand the "facts" that are available to the consumer, which are very limited by Apple.

 

[opfreak]

Ok this is getting nonsensical. IF your battery is degraded to the point that the throttling mechanism is introduced OF COURSE A BENCHMARK IS GOING TO SHOW THROTTLING, a benchmark is by definition the highest load you can put on the device. The very act of running the benchmark is going to TRIGGER the throttling because the device is running full out.

A BENCHMARK test is ONLY proof that the throttling will happen WHEN RUNNING THE BENCHMARK, it’s NOT a test of normal usage throttling.
[doublepost=1514246028][/doublepost]
No I don’t have a test of normal usage throttling, but again, throttling during a benchmark is only proving that the device will throttle during a benchmark.

I don’t know how to make it clearer that your “proof” of CONSTANT throttling is only proof of Apples mechanism doing exactly what it was designed to do: throttle under high load when the battery is too degraded to provide the proper output.

The lack of a test for normal usage throttling IS NOT PROOF OF CONSTANT THROTTLING. Don’t pretend it is.

So you have no proof of your claims but yet think you are 100% right? Meanwhile everyone else has proof that the phones slow down permanently, and they are all wrong.

 

[NT1440]

So you have no proof of your claims but yet think you are 100% right? Meanwhile everyone else has proof that the phones slow down permanently, and they are all wrong.

I’m not going to go over this again, if you can’t understand that benchmarks are not proof of real world usage and performance I don’t know what to tell you.
[doublepost=1514246336][/doublepost]

you do realize CPUDasherX is not a benchmark program, right? It is a system information utility. It shows the status of the device, including the current CPU frequency.

Its only nonsensical when you don't understand the "facts" that are available to the consumer.

....then why does the DESCRIPTION of the app explicitly state that it runs the performance of several common algorithms? That’s a benchmark.

 

[Act3]

I’m not going to go over this again, if you can’t understand that benchmarks are not proof of real world usage and performance I don’t know what to tell you.
[doublepost=1514246336][/doublepost]
....then why does the DESCRIPTION of the app explicitly state that it runs the performance of several common algorithms? That’s a benchmark.

yes it will do that if you want it to, launch the app and it does no benchmarking, it shows current system state.

I have the app, not just reading the description of it.

 

[PeaceMonger]

I do not care what their reasons were.

Apple degraded my personal property behind my back and lied about it.

The truth is Apple will take the results of the suit and do a profit and loss analysis. They will not do an analysis of the company's amoral culture and exploitative behavior.

We need to make it matter more than money to Apple.

Punishing the company doesn't matter. Punishing the decision makers would, big time. It would also set a great example for similar slime in the corporate world.

Apple's senior management needs to go. Prison, preferably, as being hung, drawn and quartered is no longer fashionable. Unfortunately, we have a shortage of Gibbets and the suit is only civil, not criminal.

Attorneys' General. Step Up.

 

[opfreak]

I’m not going to go over this again, if you can’t understand that benchmarks are not proof of real world usage and performance I don’t know what to tell you.
[doublepost=1514246336][/doublepost]
....then why does the DESCRIPTION of the app explicitly state that it runs the performance of several common algorithms? That’s a benchmark.

So us proof the phones aren't permanently slowed down. (until you replace the batter)


If you are right it should be easy.

 

[NT1440]

So us proof the phones aren't permanently slowed down. (until you replace the batter)


If you are right it should be easy.

The onus is not on me to prove anything, I never claimed that iPhones throttle permanently. Your assertions are based off the fact people have sued (which isn’t proof of anything, until discovery simply having a lawsuit doesn’t prove or disprove anything), and off the circular logic of seeing throttling in the exact scenario (high power draw) where throttling would be expected.

You prove to me that the rock I’m holding doesn’t repel tigers, it should be easy after all.

 

[elmaco]

What makes Apple products great are the high quality, i.e there is no pre-installed third party crap and you get OS upgrades for free, but what I don't like is the short lifespan. I think Apple should support their hardware for ten years.

Sure, Apple may need to hire a few thousand more developers to support and test older hardware, but that is nothing if you look at the profits Apple are making. If Apple purposely slows down older hardware, they are evil and no better than other companies and I see no reason why I should pay a premium price for Apple hardware.

 

[opfreak]

The onus is not on me to prove anything, I never claimed that iPhones throttle permanently. Your assertions are based off the fact people have sued (which isn’t proof of anything, until discovery simply having a lawsuit doesn’t prove or disprove anything), and off the circular logic of seeing throttling in the exact scenario (high power draw) where throttling would be expected.

You prove to me that the rock I’m holding doesn’t repel tigers, it should be easy after all.

We have proof. You are just don't want to accept it. You want to stay ignorant. The earth is a sphere, I don't have to send you to space to prove its not flat. .

 

[Michael Goff]

How much slower is ok by you? 20%? 50%? 90%? After about a year.

Do you have proof of this (android slowing down CPUs over time) I want to see something similar to what geekbench released.

It’s in the code right here:
https://android.googlesource.com/ke...mentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/msm/bcl.txt

.

There is no argument to be had with regards to the wording or terms used in this argument. Apple have straight out confirmed that planned obsolescence does indeed exist and is alive and well in IOS.

All this thread is doing is trying to figure out if it was done by design or by stupidity.

I don't think Apple are stupid.

No, they confirmed that they’re doing something they believe is the best option.

 

[NT1440]

We have proof. You are just don't want to accept it. You want to stay ignorant. The earth is a sphere, I don't have to send you to space to prove its not flat. .

Show me the proof that iPhones are being throttled permantly. No one has posted proof, merely ASSERTIONS of proof.

 

[opfreak]

Show me the proof that iPhones are being throttled permantly. No one has posted proof, merely ASSERTIONS of proof.

You can lead a horse to water.