Slightly different tangent you're branching on. My point was, someone just can't walk into a store and demand a battery replacement because they think their battery is not healthy, when there is a Series of troubleshooting steps They follow to determine the overall health of the battery to begin with. That's just protocol based on what they determine is the most appropriate steps to move forward. Regardless of your own opinions on that matter, that's exactly what they do versus replacing a battery that could be potentially contributing to the unforseen issues.
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 Makes $29 Battery Replacements Available Immediately for iPhone 6 and Newer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Slightly different tangent you're branching on. My point was, someone just can't walk into a store and demand a battery replacement because they think their battery is not healthy, when there is a Series of troubleshooting steps They follow to determine the overall health of the battery to begin with. That's just protocol based on what they determine is the most appropriate steps to move forward. Regardless of your own opinions on that matter, that's exactly what they do versus replacing a battery that could be potentially contributing to the unforseen issues.
I disagree with thier policy.
Though I was asking if you think that a customer should be able to replace a battery in a device they own, not for free, but by paying for it . Your opinion ? Just a yes or no.
Just like I could take my car in tomorrow and replace a battery ....
If I have a very small crack in my iPhone screen, they don't decide if it warrants replacement , they replace it.....if I want .... interesting eh....
"Apple responded by noting the power management process is a "feature" rolled out to iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6s Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, and iPhone SE, but since it didn't fully communicate this change, some iPhone users may not have realized all they needed was a new battery."
So,,, What does that have to do with Apple making the price cheaper to replace something users neglected to do in the first place?
It's good Apple reduced the price on a replacement battery, but they didn't need to do a thing.
So,,, What does that have to do with Apple making the price cheaper to replace something users neglected to do in the first place?
It's good Apple reduced the price on a replacement battery, but they didn't need to do a thing.
Last edited:
No they will not . And that is the point , even for $79 , your battery has to fail the test for them to approve the replacement ..... which you pay for.
Illustration: my wife's 6, which was bought about three months after launch in 2014 and has 751 (!!!) charge cycles but reports as 88% of original capacity in Coconut Battery. Apple's not going to do that for $29 in this program.
Last edited:
Same here, only two months ago. The battery would completely drain on my iPhone 6 after taking a few pictures. Would go from like 80% to nothing at all. Brought it to an Apple Store and they confirmed a bad battery. Replaced it at full cost.I got my replaced two weeks ago upon hearing the battery issue. Full price
I'm not pissed as much about the battery issues - any phone can have them - but the way Apple handled this was just wrong.
On this topic; I called about my iPhone 6Plus and the Genius over the phone did a diagnostic and I was informed that my battery was I good shape and therefore did not qualify for the USD29 battery price.
Apple isn't telling you that you can't replace your battery if you choose to do so. They are saying they will determine if THEY will do it for $29 though. That's fully their right and 'we' have zero input in that. You can't go to an independent repair shop and force them to replace your battery for $19 or $39 when their published rate is $59.
Spot on! This is why this $29 is just PR bs....
Have you ever had Apple conduct their own battery test on the iPhone 6 to determine what it's rated at?
that's nice for the person who bought my 18 month old iPhone SE which I sold because it was running slowly but it was assessed as OK by Apple.
What’s stupid is techies whining about so-called planned obsolecense but yet when a new phone comes out they complain that it’s not a big enough upgrade from the phone released the previous year. They hate so-called planned obsolecense yet think there should be massive changes so it’s worthwhile to buy a new phone every year. Makes no sense.
I got my replaced two weeks ago upon hearing the battery issue. Full price
So call Apple’s customer support line and get a refund. I think if you asking nicely they probably won’t resist too much all things considered.
I know Apple won't care what Coconut Battery says, but it shows 767 cycles and design capacity at 71.5%. Think Apple's tools will say it's fine ?
I'm not suggesting they planned this from the design stages of the phone. That would be cynical, even for me. But upon discovering the problem, I'd certainly suggest there were bean counters involved, people far smarter than I.
At that point a decision would have to be made as to a solution. Do they just let older phones crash and deal with the aftermath of that (i.e. cost of reputation damage, potential class action lawsuits, etc)? Do they suffer the cost of issuing a recall? Do they find a "fix" for the problem that can be written into the OS, potentially effecting reputation at some point down the road when it's eventually discovered?
You can be absolutely certain that costs were ascertained before any decision was made. If, and it is only "if"... the bean counters concluded that, by far, the most lucrative solution was to add a hidden fix in the OS, why *wouldn't* Apple choose that? They're a business, not a charity. If the cost to reputation, decreased battery replacement costs to the customer, potential lawsuits, and God knows what else, were minimal compared to the enormous profits from the sale of new phones caused by consumers' unnecessary upgrade schedules, then why not go for it? Execs could still save face, plead innocence and proclaim that they thought they were dong the right thing because nobody wants a phone that crashes unexpectedly, blah, blah... Businesses and governments are far more greedy than they'd like us to believe.
Or I can do it myself right??!
So Apple now gets to play big brother with a Device I own ?
Amazing that Apple did not make decision on the small crack on my screen and took my money to replace it ..... they could have said, that is very small, does not impact you, come back later .... if it gets bigger . That is what is happening with the battery
Which is not correct - I replied to it
Was my question not clear to you ? Cause the other poster did not answer it.
My point is that this protocol was wilfully declaring batteries that iOS itself had found to be too weak to support the full CPU speed as healthy. Since this elaborate protocol you are talking about was essentially nothing else as a simple larger or less than 80% of battery capacity remaining test.
And one can spin this thread even further. If sudden shutdowns happened when the remaining battery level was above 20% (which was common enough before 10.2.1), then technically the useable battery capacity had already fallen below 80% and the phone should been have eligible for a battery exchange (free or paid depending an warranty status). Because the alternative to capping the top speed of the CPU would have been to simply rate down the remaining battery capacity such that sudden shutdowns only happened close to a 0% rating.
Now, a lot of the shutdowns happened in cold temperatures or more generally happened significantly earlier in cold temperatures which creates a grey zone in regard whether a battery was still fulfilling the 80% criterium (there certainly is a temperature range somewhere in the fine print).
