Apple Fined 25 Million Euros in France for Slowing Down Older iPhones With iOS Update

[diddl14]

Nice. Fined $25m for trying to extend the live of their products. Clearly you can flip this in all directions but fact is the the actual patch did just that. Instead of having older devices with aged battery just die, the patch allowed them to keep working, although no longer with peek performance.

 

[ignatius345]

And if Apple had told people about it there would still be a ton of suspicion about Apple's motivation, sparking more whinefests of epic proportions on tech forums such as MR.

”People would complain so it’s better not to tell them the truth”? Genius logic there.

 

[sofila]

Customers were unable to have the supposed defective/aged battery replaced, even by paying the due amount.
Apple refused until it was later forced to do so. In the meanwhile customers were kindly offered to buy a new phone, while a simple battery replacement would have been enough. Even Tim Cook later admitted that battery replacement program partially affected the latter iPhone sales. Hiding behind a technical reason is simply ... fake, I can't find a better word.

 

[Zaft]

Apple is a business first that answers to shareholders. Not disclosing the details that a new battery would fix the slowdown would force people to upgrade under the illusion of “its an old phone”

 

[1345873]

This is just a money grab by ineffective, untechnical government bureaucrats. Don't paint it as fight for freedom or consumer rights. They didn't understood the reasons, and jumped to a conclusion. They saw opportunity to take advantage of Apple and used it. Where Apple went mile ahead of competition, did the right thing and got punished for it. I hope Apple will continie to do the right thing and serve their customers. Apple did the right thing, while DGCCRF only cares about money.

If he didn’t sound so funny, he could be serious.. or is it the other way around?

Apple did apologized for the fact of throttling (and spinned a story along the way)

 

[ani4ani]

Apple meant well but should have been transparent

They meant never to be found out...period.
[automerge]1581107658[/automerge]

It's a great engineering solution to a hardware issue, but by not telling customers about it, Apple just "happened" to have a lot of people buy new phones.

..and then had the audacity to state that iPhone sales dipped because so many people were buying new batteries

 

[I7guy]

Apple is a business first that answers to shareholders. Not disclosing the details that a new battery would fix the slowdown would force people to upgrade under the illusion of “its an old phone”

I got my battery replaced for free, I wasn’t upgrading until I was ready.

 

[manu chao]

You're somewhat right, but it's not the complete picture. The problem is that cell impedance increases in the battery over time as the electrolyte degrades. When the CPU tries to draw too much current the voltage of the battery droops, going below what is needed to run the phone. Boom, sudden shutdown. If the battery capacity were increased then they could deal with sudden voltage droops but still be above the "sudden shutdown voltage." I agree that there's not enough headroom to supply the same power draw after 2 years of use, however the solution to problem (assuming identical battery chemistry) is to make the battery larger so it takes longer to degrade to a point where it no longer functions.

So let me try to be clear: You are suggesting that it is not possible to design a Li-ion rechargeable battery with a capacity lower than that of the iPhone 6 (6.9 Wh) that could support the maximum power draw of the A8 (plus other chips) in the iPhone 6?

 

[justperry]

Just one word...for this fine.

Ridiculous

 

[manu chao]

Up until this "feature" / batterygate from Apple, the whole battery degradation and throttling was not a significant issue.
I mean of course technically and physically there is a battery degradation in any phone, but Apple seems to have somehow made the batteries degrade significantly in 2-3 years of life and then "solve" it through this software update that, as a lot noticed, conveniently brings more people in the store to upgrade their iphone.....

Do you really think Apple had that planned out when they designed the iPhone 6 but then only implemented the solution years later after it had caught flak for iPhones shutting down suddenly?

I know that for some people, anything going wrong must be doing so on purpose and was long planned in advance because the thought that **** just happens is too disturbing. Neuroscience/psychology might be able to explain why (some) brains are wired that way. But luckily, most people are self-conscious enough to correct for any such biological biases and have a more realistic view of real life.

Which in this case was that Apple both underestimated how 'fast' the ageing process of the batteries would get us to this sudden death situation (which includes underestimating the load the presumably quick power scale-up the A8 had on the battery) AND quite possibly also deliberately reduced the safety margin to some degree during the design phase.

 

[manu chao]

Customers were unable to have the supposed defective/aged battery replaced, even by paying the due amount.

And you know why that was so? Because their standard 'tests' to check whether a battery needed replacement showed these batteries to still be 'within spec'. Which was not a deliberate sabotage but simply a case of a 'test' design that wasn't looking at the right parameters (here maximum power the battery can sustain while clearing a minimum voltage or if you want the other way around, the voltage the battery dropped to when faced with a peak power draw).

 

[insoft.uk]

25m to who, would it it not have been better a lower fine and order Apple to replace all iPhone batteries for free as part of the fine, the consumer is not going to see any benefits of this fine.

 

[mi7chy]

Fine is so small that it won't be a deterrence for Apple to repeat the offense in the future. The profit gained from slowing down people's phone to force them to upgrade is far greater than the fine. It's like being fined only $50 for robbing a bank.

 

[fokmik]

The users should receive the money not the france government

 

[sofila]

And you know why that was so? Because their standard 'tests' to check whether a battery needed replacement showed these batteries to still be 'within spec'. Which was not a deliberate sabotage but simply a case of a 'test' design that wasn't looking at the right parameters (here maximum power the battery can sustain while clearing a minimum voltage or if you want the other way around, the voltage the battery dropped to when faced with a peak power draw).

You're probably right. I still find amusing that a simple battery replacement was not within the reach of the customer (willing to pay for it).

I would have preferred an approach like "in our opinion your phone does not need a battery replacement, you would spend money uselessly, but since it is your phone...". But we all know how it went.

 

[tcphoto1]

Which simply made Tim laugh as he reviewed the account balances from the Ireland Office.

 

[e1me5]

The problem was not the "Feature" which I also think is good, but Apple's continued arrogance that they don't have to give their customers options or notifications.

I get your point but I believe the problem lies with entitled people who believe in conspiracy theories such as Apple's planed obsolescence and demand refunds due to the popularity of the brand.
What Apple did and explained in very simple terms when they released 10.2.1 ( "It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone." iOS 10.2.1) was to optimised under certain conditions the performance of a product they sell and prevent their customers inconvenience and dissatisfaction.
It's the same as car manufacturers do program engines to readjust ignition timing and fuel supply when the engine's CPU detects preignition conditions, reducing the engine power by 1-2 horsepower but preventing engine damages that cost thousands of dollars. Sure, in a perfect engineering world you can notice a drop in performance on a dynamometer but how many do notice it in the real world and how many have come forward to demand damage compensation due to reduced output of a car.

 

[uller6]

So let me try to be clear: You are suggesting that it is not possible to design a Li-ion rechargeable battery with a capacity lower than that of the iPhone 6 (6.9 Wh) that could support the maximum power draw of the A8 (plus other chips) in the iPhone 6?

The 6.9 Wh battery is plenty big enough to satisfy the iPhone 6 power envelope, the issue was that the batteries aged faster than Apple was probably expecting. So, there are two ways to prevent this:

1. Use a bigger battery with more spare capacity, so as the battery ages it can still satisfy the power demands of the device after 2-3 years
2. use a different battery chemistry that ages slower, extending the lifetime of the battery.

 

[Defthand]

And you know why that was so? Because their standard 'tests' to check whether a battery needed replacement showed these batteries to still be 'within spec'. Which was not a deliberate sabotage but simply a case of a 'test' design that wasn't looking at the right parameters (here maximum power the battery can sustain while clearing a minimum voltage or if you want the other way around, the voltage the battery dropped to when faced with a peak power draw).

You’re ignoring an important detail. Apple had already identified the cause of the device shutdowns as being related to the battery health. They understood the relationship and had a good idea of which batteries would be susceptible. Knowing this, they should have informed their geniuses to disregard the pass/fail result of the test and recommend a replacement battery if the charge cycles were high.

 

[I7guy]

Fine is so small that it won't be a deterrence for Apple to repeat the offense in the future. The profit gained from slowing down people's phone to force them to upgrade is far greater than the fine. It's like being fined only $50 for robbing a bank.

Do you know what that alleged profit is? $1? $10? $50 million? If not this post seems more like a hypothetical post.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

Sure, the EU commission 'fined' Apple about 10 billion Euros over taxes in Ireland and Apple doesn't punish the EU market. But it should punish France over 25 millions?

Not to punish them. Just give them what they want don't slow their phones down. When the French become mature enough to understand why the update slowed down phones let them upgrade.

 

[I7guy]

You’re ignoring an important detail. Apple had already identified the cause of the device shutdowns as being related to the battery health. They understood the relationship and had a good idea of which batteries would be susceptible. Knowing this, they should have informed their geniuses to disregard the pass/fail result of the test and recommend a replacement battery if the charge cycles were high.

Hence the $29 battery replacement program.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

I still don't understand why anyone thinks this is anyone's business besides Apple engineers. Tim Cook never should have acknowledged it publicly, which is what invited all the backlash. They could have simply maintained that how and why they manage the iPhone CPU is really not anyone else's business or concern.

Apple can throttle up and down CPU for any reason whatsoever and no one, anywhere, has any 'legal' claim otherwise.

What Apple did wrong was letting idiot Tim Cook acknowledge it, apologize for it, and start the stupid battery program. He admitted wrong-doing where there was none, as a means of customer appeasement, but boy was that stupid. It told all of the idiot whiners who still think they own something other than some bits of aluminum and glass that they were right, and that there was some other recourse available to them other than 'buy something else'.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I guess since Apple has just went from a trillion dollar company to around a one and a half trillion dollar company we can just let it slide. You are a bit out of line calling Cook an idiot. When you call Cook an idiot you open yourself up to direct comparisons. I am going to tell you gently that you don't stack up to the intellectual prowess which Cook commands.

 

[macMD]

Regardless of the company, current fines do little to nothing to curb the behavior of companies. Fines need to be equal to the profits generated from what they are being fined for. So in this case it should be bullions of dollars. In a drug make or medical device company it should be billions. Until the penalty out weighs the profits and corporations can no longer factor in the low penalties they may get hit with then then they will continue to do the same old routine.

 

[I7guy]

Regardless of the company, current fines do little to nothing to curb the behavior of companies. Fines need to be equal to the profits generated from what they are being fined for. So in this case it should be bullions of dollars. In a drug make or medical device company it should be billions. Until the penalty out weighs the profits and corporations can no longer factor in the low penalties they may get hit with then then they will continue to do the same old routine.

And you know for certain that Apple made billions of dollars from “duping” consumers or bait and switch with this power management?