Surely that would depend if one counts the phone shutting down as 'negatively affecting processing performance'
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 Now Faces 26+ Lawsuits for 'Purposefully' or 'Secretly' Slowing Down Older iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Surely that would depend if one counts the phone shutting down as 'negatively affecting processing performance'
Thing is by now, you have bought the apps and the watch and apps for the watch and earpods probably and maybe a car stereo with carplay and since apple is the only ios device maker, you either get slowed down untill you upgrade annualy (nobody communicated to you that it’s the battery) or you have wasted all that extra money too.
iOS devices es also have a low battery mode and you are notified about it and that reduces performance and switches off some features such as poling email to extend usage time. And you can activate it at any time with the battery indicator turning Yellow to provide you with visual notifications.
[doublepost=1515239594][/doublepost]
Agreed and that problem is the subject of a recall notice and A FREE battery replacement for qualifying 6S models already
Why does it matter if a car RUNs on battery or not? Do those batteries degrade differently? And it was you that started the car battery comparison. Sigh.
Actually, they degrade somewhat the same, but the manufacturers sure don't warranty them the same!
The car battery comparison was to show a similar product's PRO-RATING of their Warranty, due to KNOWN WEAROUT.
[doublepost=1515239979][/doublepost]
Prove it.
You don't know what Apple's Costs are for battery replacement, and neither does some stupid blog.
[doublepost=1515240109][/doublepost]
According to who? Samsung?!?
The problem here is not batteries degrading, the problem is hiding the fact that batteries were degrading. Apple seems to think that giving an extra year of life to iPhone 6/6S while being slowed down would be enough and then people would throw it away like some disposable toy.
Right. Except intended or not, people do buy new iPhones when their old ones slow down. What a nice coincidence.
So basically you don’t agree with Geekbench so it’s an app that can’t be trusted?
So are you saying this also includes Apple ? In relation to battery aging and laptops being slowed down? Cause you did not mention them in your post.
Apple's only sin was not lack of communication, thier other sin is greed and a product that makes up 70% revenue, along with phones that got sonthing, the batteries could not cut it. Planned obsolescence in a laptop not the same as a phone, laptops last 3-5 years. Apple is creating phones that last 12 months....my 2009 MacBook Pro works just fine, as it's also designed to run with power attached .
Don't forget laptops are not used on battery. Every company I've worked for in the last 10 years has given me a laptop , which I spent most of the day having plugged into the power brick
2 out of the 3 scenarios Apple listed for potential throttling due to lack of voltage don't require an old battery. Low charge and cold conditions can both happen when the battery is brand new. So how can you effectively argue that the throttling feature was actually intended to prevent the customer from knowing "the battery was the problem" if it's not going to be the problem until you hit 80% capacity or less? Apple has never said the shutdown prevention feature only kicked in when the battery capacity hit a certain point. They've said it kicks in when there are large peaks/valleys in power draw relative to the remaining voltage during discharge. And that has been proven by the fact that benchmarking apps like Geekbench can trigger throttling regardless of the overall battery capacity.
Last edited:
Apple appears to trust it, Lol Waiting for firewood to explain this.
“Our testing with public benchmarks has shown that the changes in the December 2017 updates resulted in no measurable reduction in the performance of macOS and iOS as measured by the Geekbench 4 benchmark, or in common Web browsing benchmarks such as Speedometer, JetStream, and ARES-6.”
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208394
Last edited:
I don't have a source but ALL companies use the cheapest supplies they can to maximize profit..
And you know what we will never know what was said behind closed door meetings.. I'm sure there is a lot more to this than apple is telling.
HAHA yeah a $4 dollar battery is the top of the line..
They owe me the performance of the product I bought with out any limitations..
They came up with a solution to POSSIBLY hide a bigger issue with the batteries then they are saying.
Tesla would do it the right way and tell their customer that their battery needs service by a certain time or the car won't run. I doubt they would try to hide it to get you to buy another car. But that's JMO
James
If some or all of these lawsuits move forward, I dearly hope that the prosecuting attorneys use significantly better arguments than those in this thread, otherwise they are going to have their clocks cleaned. In particular amongst those of the "planned obsolescence" faction. If I could sum up the same few dozen people's arguments in these threads it'd go like this:
(1) I buy a new phone every year
(2) I wouldn't decide that on my own because I'm "different" than the hundreds of millions of people who buy them because they want one
(3) My phone slows down every year as I upgrade iOS
(4) Apple "got caught" managing batteries in such a way that may slow down my phone in certain situations
(5) Since my phone is slow, and battery management might slow it down, that's the reason it's slow.
(6) Since Apple didn't tell me that Power Management (which usually means throttling something back in certain situations) can equal Throttling Something Back In Certain Situations, and since no one writes poor iOS applications (wink, wink, nudge, nudge Facebook), and because the only reason a newer version of iOS would perform slowly on any phone is because Apple wants me to buy a new phone, Apple is clearly coercing me to buy a new one.
(7) So I bought a new iPhone
(8) Repeat 1-7 every year
(9) I'm a victim and I deserve something, like a new phone, or at least to slap Apple.
You know, anything's possible, and it could be true that Tim, Eddie & crew are cackling to themselves in an evil laugh at how pathetically easy it is to get people to do stupid things, but planned obsolescence is going to be remarkably difficult to prove (and no, this isn't the same as the iBooks case). And the above (admittedly tongue-n-cheek) logic flow won't work.
I feel for people who have slow phones or who's batteries drain quickly or have other performance related issues. I've had some of those same issues on my 6S+ over the last couple of years. It's not fun. In my case, it wasn't evil Apple trying to get me to buy a new phone, just poorly written code (Facebook, Skype for Business, etc). My 6S+ also shows this throttling when I run Geekbench at different charge levels. Fortunately, because my phone experience seems to be the same (watch movies, edit photos, movies, music, airplay, etc) regardless of my charge level, I haven't needed to get my pitchfork and torch and go running out of my village hut. Others' day-to-day experience may be different and if it can be shown that it is because of the power management changes, maybe a simpler and cheaper solution is to have the company tweak the algorithms.
Just a thought. Creating a big payday for the prosecuting lawyers seems such a waste of money.
(1) I buy a new phone every year
(2) I wouldn't decide that on my own because I'm "different" than the hundreds of millions of people who buy them because they want one
(3) My phone slows down every year as I upgrade iOS
(4) Apple "got caught" managing batteries in such a way that may slow down my phone in certain situations
(5) Since my phone is slow, and battery management might slow it down, that's the reason it's slow.
(6) Since Apple didn't tell me that Power Management (which usually means throttling something back in certain situations) can equal Throttling Something Back In Certain Situations, and since no one writes poor iOS applications (wink, wink, nudge, nudge Facebook), and because the only reason a newer version of iOS would perform slowly on any phone is because Apple wants me to buy a new phone, Apple is clearly coercing me to buy a new one.
(7) So I bought a new iPhone
(8) Repeat 1-7 every year
(9) I'm a victim and I deserve something, like a new phone, or at least to slap Apple.
You know, anything's possible, and it could be true that Tim, Eddie & crew are cackling to themselves in an evil laugh at how pathetically easy it is to get people to do stupid things, but planned obsolescence is going to be remarkably difficult to prove (and no, this isn't the same as the iBooks case). And the above (admittedly tongue-n-cheek) logic flow won't work.
I feel for people who have slow phones or who's batteries drain quickly or have other performance related issues. I've had some of those same issues on my 6S+ over the last couple of years. It's not fun. In my case, it wasn't evil Apple trying to get me to buy a new phone, just poorly written code (Facebook, Skype for Business, etc). My 6S+ also shows this throttling when I run Geekbench at different charge levels. Fortunately, because my phone experience seems to be the same (watch movies, edit photos, movies, music, airplay, etc) regardless of my charge level, I haven't needed to get my pitchfork and torch and go running out of my village hut. Others' day-to-day experience may be different and if it can be shown that it is because of the power management changes, maybe a simpler and cheaper solution is to have the company tweak the algorithms.
Just a thought. Creating a big payday for the prosecuting lawyers seems such a waste of money.
Last edited:
I don’t think it’s likely they’ll be a one stop opt out option. If the suits are combined, it’s possible you might not be able to opt out, similar to the ebook settlement.
I wouldn’t say all/only. They also profit the general and specific *victim-enabler-victim-enabler* feedback loop.
^EDITED for clarification, added --
If the suits are combined in replacement of If they are
Last edited:
Best post I've read on the issue, in awhile. Thank you for your comment.
It's only just beginning. You just don't burn loyal customers. FYI - the battery replacement program in Europe is 44.00 euro's! Nice huh? Greed is NOT good!
Of cours it does. Its a standard thing on a computer platform. This is why I think its completely blown out of proportion.
What does this have to do with planned obsolesce? Why do people start throwing these words around every time they don't like something? Batteries are subject to wear and tear. There is nothing "planned" about it — its just how it is. When a battery is old, it has to be replaced. This is as valid for a contemporary mobile phone as it was for a walkman in the 70ties. Its your choice if you want to buy a new battery or a new phone. And why 12 months? Are you suggesting that the battery needs replacement after a year? I am very sure it will last longer than that. Never noticed any slowdowns on any of my iPhones, which I usually own for around 2 years.
Maybe Apple should just introduce a switch in preferences and let people who don't want safety features just deal with crashes and data loss if that is what they want.
P.S. My 6S had a battery recall so the battery got replaces for free. I am very sure that this has also been forgotten now and the phones with factory defective batteries are also being thrown into the pot. Maybe thats how the "12 months" thing is born.
So you would take Apple's word for it but not Samsung's?
I see no bias at all.
Yup. Just search the forum for the number of apple fanatics out there. I love apple but I love them for what they are. Good hardware and good software. Someone else comes out who is better then them I will switch. Just like I did with Microsoft/Windows.
If I could sue without a lawyer I would, but that's not how it works.
Step 1 thru 9 is enough to cast a reasonable doubt on Apple's business practice, especially if it's experienced by millions of people. You seem to think we need to extract meeting minutes, phone conversation...etc in order to prove this in the court. Perhaps, the court can order these information from Apple or can be obtained by other legal means. I don't know, I am not a lawyer. However, to suggest people not to do anything because it's hard to prove in the court is just...that.
Just because there is a goalie doesn't mean you can't score.
The only outcome I want is to force Apple to design user-replaceable batteries into their devices. So many problems would be solved if they made this one change.