not to cool if aapl did slow down devices intentionally
on the fence as to if it was done or not
on the fence as to if it was done or not
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 Fined 25 Million Euros in France for Slowing Down Older iPhones With iOS Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
A simple pop up notification that alerted you that your battery was below a certain threshold and either required replacement or a reduced performance mode would've done it. Problem is everyone would've called it a money grab for battery sales. No win situation.
Absolutely. You’re right and I’m not disputing this issue at all.
They also helped me keep my 6s running until now. And it’s still a great phone.
I just wish that the right to repair and the production of non repairable/upgradable hardware were more discussed and debated by the lawmakers.
It seems the charge was, 'a misleading commercial practice by omission' that is consumers should have been informed in order to make a choice but as it was, once they had updated they couldn't go back to a previous operating system and were then forced to either pay for a new battery or a new phone.
It was argued Apple intentionally slowed the older phones to accelerate their replacement.
The investigation took 2 years.
I note Apple didn't appeal the result and have agreed to pay.
It was argued Apple intentionally slowed the older phones to accelerate their replacement.
The investigation took 2 years.
I note Apple didn't appeal the result and have agreed to pay.
What do you think will give Apple more pause, a token fine from bureaucrats or the loss of goodwill from customers that could cost them tens of billions of dollars? The bad press they got over this is going to have a much bigger impact (and has had a much bigger impact) on their business practices and customer relations than a bunch the edicts of a bunch of tech and business illiterates in Brussels.
You may not believe it, but most businesses really aren't out to screw over their customers, and the ones that do don't tend to stick around for very long.
We're being regulated to death by bureaucrats. The market will fix this automatically, i.e., if Apple customers are dissatisfied with the products, they will jump ship and buy a Xiaomi or Samsung instead.
Gubmint has become to strong and dominant, both in EU and the US.
Gubmint has become to strong and dominant, both in EU and the US.
Then you weren’t paying attention. Apple deliberately withheld the knowledge that aging batteries were the trigger for users’ device shutdowns, and more importantly, that replacing the battery would resolve the issue while restoring general performance. The undisclosed software band-aid minimized the likelihood of a device shutdown but added to the general performance hit. When Apple store employees were asked about a phone’s declining performance, they had no knowledge of the software patch either. Phones tested by the geniuses revealed no battery deficits(!) or other hardware issues. Customers were advised that their older phones had reached the peak of their processing abilities. A considerable number of users testified that they unnecessarily purchased new phones on that advice.
Meanwhile, a tech blogger discovered the software patch and demonstrated that a new battery would restore performance to like-new levels, but users like myself who immediately took this insight to the geniuses, were told that our tested batteries were within Apple’s specs. Even if you insisted on buying a new battery, as I did, they refused. Their policy was they did not do maintenance, only repairs. I bought a replacement battery from iFixit and installed it myself. Sure enough, its Geekbench score was restored to like-new levels.
Ultimately, affected users were outraged that Apple didn’t disclose either the software band-aid nor the battery solution. The stunt disproved Apple’s integrity and added to suspicions that products are purposely obsoleted. Apple was busted and had a serious PR matter that it couldn’t convincingly explain away. To soften the blow from the numerous lawsuits that were filed, and to regain trust, Apple launched its battery replacement program.
This is just the first of many fines/settlements I suspect they’ll pay.
I'm pretty sure one draw some correlation with disposable income but probably also with general anglophile sentiments.
So from the comments here I see people believe this nonsense of “planned obsolescence”
what should Apple have done? Not allow older devices to update to the latest software which included security updates? Let devices with old batteries just constantly restart? Seriously, what should they have done to prove they were not intentionally forcing people to upgrade?
what should Apple have done? Not allow older devices to update to the latest software which included security updates? Let devices with old batteries just constantly restart? Seriously, what should they have done to prove they were not intentionally forcing people to upgrade?
So you are sure that (a) having their phones run slower will entice more people to get a new one compared to having their phone shut-down prematurely and (b) that Apple thought so as well and that this was an important factor in their decisions to develop and deploy that change?
I can't imagine what kind of a ****** devices we would get if there were less regulations. There is a reason why these regulations exist.
Not sure what a person's liking for England, its people and its culture has to do with his/her choice of mobile phone platform...
i mean the percentage to show your current charge. They removed it with El Capitan? (I think)
Very keen observation indeed. Sigh, it is what it is though.
In all fairness however, I've never been one to hate for the sake of hating. I gave Android a 2-3 run from like 2011-2014. Just didn't end up suiting my needs.
In the end though, if you look close enough, the data will tell you everything you need to know.
They did communicate that the update was supposed to help with the sudden shutdowns.
What I don't understand is why 90%(*) of addressable iPhone users never thought to find out whether it was possible to put a new battery into their phone.
(*) Ok, that 90% number is the very high end of the estimate. It is based on the fact that Apple sold around 11 to 12 million battery exchanges per year after that issue blew up, compared to between 1 and 2 million the years before. From these numbers, these exchanges increased by a factor of about 6x to 10x. And it wasn't just the publicity but also the price cut that caused this increase.
A phone with adequate battery capacity operates at peak performance without shutting down. The software patch wasn’t intended for phones with younger batteries. An impaired battery would make the phone vulnerable to shutdowns as routine usage exceeds the battery’s capabilities and triggers a protection feature.
Apologists think that the only options were those allowed by Apple: device shutdowns when power demands can’t be supplied; or throttling performance more and more as the battery ages. There was a third option that they avoided mentioning or fulfilling: replace the damn battery.
Well, my High Sierra Mac has the percentage currently showing in the menu bar:
[automerge]1581092726[/automerge]
'Anglophile' refers to the whole English-speaking world, ie, includes the U.S.. Apple being a U.S. company compared to almost all Android handset makers being East-Asian, thus can play a role. Like having some affinity to what is labelled 'Western' (ie, North America, Europe, Australia, etc.) might lead some people to buy a car from a brand that comes from that group of countries over one from (East) Asia.
Last edited:
Why are there not similar lawsuits across the entire world? Everyone has known this was done, customers suffered, many were "forced" to upgrade their phone in order to avoid the slowdown, and Apple turned their back.
Despite the progress OS upgrades offer, there should always be an expectation that, when you buy an iPhone from Apple, it should continue to operate at the same speed all the time, customers should be warned about potential slowdowns with OS upgrades, even if it means being locked into an older OS.
Despite the progress OS upgrades offer, there should always be an expectation that, when you buy an iPhone from Apple, it should continue to operate at the same speed all the time, customers should be warned about potential slowdowns with OS upgrades, even if it means being locked into an older OS.
Ah, interesting stuff, thanks. Yeah, if they were actively denying the issue and claiming the batteries were fine when they weren't then that sounds bad.
I don't wish my next statement to be taken as an insult against iPhone users.....but let's be honest, a great number of people who purchase iPhones (and Android phones) do little to no research, have little or no interest in knowing how phones really work and buy the phone because their family or friends have told them that iPhone is the way to go and probably most importantly, believe everything they are told by the "experts" who work in Apple Stores. And in some cases, the semi-savvy customers who had the gall to suggest that perhaps a new battery was the best way to resolve things were told by the "expert" that it would be much better for all concerned to purchase a new phone.
So please don't try to turn this around and put the blame on the customers.
What amazes me is okay lets say Apple was upfront. People would still have their iPhone 6 with a new battery. So you paid Apple 100+ for a new battery. Are people really hugging on to these old devices? I imagine people who would spend the cost of a new phone replacing the battery every year talking about how great they are for not needing new tech. The whole thing is silly.
Phones are disposable devices. Say it again. Laptops are disposable devices. You buy them and they are surpassed by newer tech in less than six months. If you have issue with this maybe stop letting battery companies make batteries with a shelf life. Every time someone makes a battery that would significantly increase the life of these devices they are scooped up by battery companies and shelved.
However, this is the kicker people don't think about. Lets say Apple drops a phone with a replaceable battery. How many people would be happy with a iPhone 3G performance wise? How about just any 32-bit iPhone in general with no security updates? 10 year old laptop that can't properly stream any current content?
No matter how resilient the technology is nothing makes it forever.......
Phones are disposable devices. Say it again. Laptops are disposable devices. You buy them and they are surpassed by newer tech in less than six months. If you have issue with this maybe stop letting battery companies make batteries with a shelf life. Every time someone makes a battery that would significantly increase the life of these devices they are scooped up by battery companies and shelved.
However, this is the kicker people don't think about. Lets say Apple drops a phone with a replaceable battery. How many people would be happy with a iPhone 3G performance wise? How about just any 32-bit iPhone in general with no security updates? 10 year old laptop that can't properly stream any current content?
No matter how resilient the technology is nothing makes it forever.......
Because many countries have poor legal systems and/or numerous impediments to suing large wealthy corporations.
Sure, because it had occurred to nobody that all those reports of sudden shutdowns all happened with devices that were at least a year old (and in most cases 2+ years old).