They throttled and did not make the public aware of this. Their geniuses regularly suggest upgrading when your phone is sluggish. They are culpable.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Did Not Consider How Battery Replacement Program Would Impact iPhone Upgrade Rates
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What's so sad about this forum is I can't tell if this is a troll or not...
Sounds like a lovely teapot.
[doublepost=1517532326][/doublepost]
Yeah, there's no dancing around this.
Apple Employee: "Mr. Cook, I just put together a report outlining the effects of our new battery replacement program on upgrade rates and revenue. Here take a look!"
See kids? this is why Cook makes the big bucks... because he's able to say complete horse**** like the above while somehow keeping a straight face
Of course they thought about it at one point or another. You're telling me Apple, the richest company in the world, got to that point by being idiots and not even considering how intentionally sabotaging customers older devices via software throttling might spur some new upgrades? Riiiiiight
Time Cook: "Ehh, I don't care..."
If Cook’s statement is, “true,” Apple’s boardroom table is getting SLOPPY. Lol!
Their warranty is one year. The iPhone 6's and 6 plus and even some 7's were out of warranty. Here is what you could have done legally to get Apple to repair or replace: NOTHING. The warranty period is up. Only by trying to do something have they (possibly) made themselves liable. And they may still not be liable, but by trying to put in a fix, which they did announce they just didn't say what the fix did or what component was the cause of the problem could they have possibly extended the time they could be held liable. There may have been a lot of people mad that their phone didn't last but legally it lasted as long as the warranty, and after that Apple owes you bupkis.
True story:
When I took my first iPhone (3Gs) to Apple Store to see about a battery replacement, the employee said it would cost about $60. Then he rolled it around in his hand and said, "It's a bit scratched." I explained that it had fallen out of my shirt pocket a few times. Then for the price of a battery replacement he transferred my sim card to a refurbished iPhone.
Complain all you want, and I do, too. Apple makes tons of profit by striving to satisfy the needs and wants of its customers.
When I took my first iPhone (3Gs) to Apple Store to see about a battery replacement, the employee said it would cost about $60. Then he rolled it around in his hand and said, "It's a bit scratched." I explained that it had fallen out of my shirt pocket a few times. Then for the price of a battery replacement he transferred my sim card to a refurbished iPhone.
Complain all you want, and I do, too. Apple makes tons of profit by striving to satisfy the needs and wants of its customers.
Being caught usually isn't a concern for features outlined in release notes.
Nobody is really worried about that anyway, just how slow the phones are in the end. They definitely get slower after many updates. I'll bet the most significant slowdown, other than this one case of CPU throttling, is from the new OSs not being optimized for old hardware or simply being slower. That's really subjective, so you can't measure it.
Last edited:
Apple, if you thought it was the right thing, make the $29 forever, not 1 time for a year.
Not throttling the phones would have allowed a worse symptom: sudden shut down of the phone. If that happened, chances are you would form a bad opinion of the product and not want another, especially since Apple wasn’t forthcoming about the cause: an aging battery. Throttling the phone disguised the cause (and the obvious solution)! Apple’s motive wasn’t to push customers to buy a new phone; it was to ensure they didn’t buy a different brand afterwards.
Imagine if Apple had been transparent about a battery’s affect on performance, and had been proactive in prescribing replacement batteries to restore performance (worked for my 6s). Now ask yourself, Why would I defend their decision to compromise me in order to protect themselves from competitors’ criticisms?
Geniuses had no prior knowledge that a phone’s poor performance could be battery related. If all the the information in front of them shows that the phone is functioning as normal and the only two options they have to present to you is a $300 replacement of a likely outdated model or offer you a trade in and purchase a new model, of course they would recommend purchasing a new phone. It is the better option for most given that situation.
How come this wasn't a problem until recently? They weren't throttling phones until, what, the iPhone 6?
[doublepost=1517536412][/doublepost]
Nah, the Apple retail store employees don't seem to ever push new products without a good reason. At least every single time I've gone in, they've been very honest and usually error towards the consumer's side if anything.
I don’t believe Tim, but if he is telling the truth, I’m pissed as a shareholder because Apple’s first loyalty should be to shareholders and not to customers. If he doesn’t care how this move would affect the share price, then maybe it’s time to sell. Tim is a disaster, and the sooner he gets removed, the better it is for both shareholders and the customers.
Customers are vital to the shareholders.
To put it mildly, many Apple buyers are intensely loyal. Add to that that many buy a new phone every year. Finally, not all iPhones have a problem even after 2 or 3 years. I have an iPhone 6+, and I haven’t replaced the battery, at least not yet. If I’m to believe the program I downloaded to test the battery mine isn’t that bad despite being 3 1/2 years old.is it as fast as new? No, but it has gone through at least 3 new OS’s and had this not made the news I probably would have attributed any slowdown to that.
For all of these reasons I think you might have had some people grumble but not that many defect.
those two things are not diametrically opposed. There was a time when Apple was both fantastically profitable for shareholders AND rewarding for the consumer. Debate is on whether that is still true.
I'm not a lawyer but most companies have pretty airtight terms and conditions, so that wouldn't surprise me. I really don't think the lawsuits are going succeed in doing anything except to make lawyers on both sides a lot of money.
Well, of course they discussed whether or not replacing batteries in older phones would impact the amount of upgrades customers would purchase in the future. What a stupid lie. This replacement program will reduce how quickly customers upgrade their iPhones, it's just a question of by how much.
In fact, before Apple was exposed for slowing down iPhones, they likely had a meeting considering their options concerning the impact of older phones with older batteries, and likely dismissed the option to replace batteries BECAUSE it would cause them to have lower iPhone upgrades. I swear, upper management would have to be amebas not to consider the impact of replacing batteries in iPhones.
In fact, before Apple was exposed for slowing down iPhones, they likely had a meeting considering their options concerning the impact of older phones with older batteries, and likely dismissed the option to replace batteries BECAUSE it would cause them to have lower iPhone upgrades. I swear, upper management would have to be amebas not to consider the impact of replacing batteries in iPhones.
There was also a time when Apple wasn't. In 1997 Microsoft invested 150 million in Apple to keep it afloat. Steve Jobs had returned to Apple as CEO by that time. At around the same time, in a famous (infamous?) quote Micheal Dell of Dell computers asked what Steve Jobs should do and he said Steve should refund stock holders money. Yes Steve got the last laugh out of that exchange but it was by the narrowest of margins that Apple survived into the 21st century.