Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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.

You didn't ask me personally but I'd like to address the bolded bits of your post if you don't mind.

Batteries are subject to wear and tear ...agreed
There is nothing planned about it...agree all battteries wear out
When a battery is old, it has to be replaced....agreed
Its your choice if you want to buy a new battery or a new phone...

This is where it gets sticky. Apple feels it's necessary to throttle your battery because it can no longer function properly. The customer then has the battery tested by Apple and they tell you the battery is still good, and then refuse to replace your battery even if you pay full price.

Can you see how that is confusing to the customer? The customer trust Apple so figures their phone is just messed up. Some of these customers will just buy a new phone. They have no way of knowing a new battery will fix the issues they are having. No one is disputing that batteries go bad although I too think one year is rather short lived. If Apple feels it's necessary to throttle after that period of time then something can't be right.

Anyway, have a good day and thanks for the discussion.
 
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.
This is wrong. Two main things Apple did(I posted this before):

1) Failed to communicate there was an 'alleged' problem with batteries. (From my understanding, battery shutdown issues only applies to very small amount of users, however, throttling update was applied to everyone using the specific model, including the one year old iPhone 7).
2) Decreased CPU power with each iteration of iOS without the knowledge and consent of user. (No one assumes CPU performance issues stemming from an aged battery, as it is simply not a symptom of it.)

Apple also defends that throttling was done to extend life of the phone, but all it does is extend the life of the cheap battery, which was in need of a replacement, a fact that was withheld by Apple while slowing down customer's phone. The phone itself is perfectly fine. Why did Apple withhold BOTH of these information?
 
Last edited:
How about suit for pain and suffering from having to use a super slow iPhone 6+ while i kept waiting for a good upgrade?

At times I wanted to throw the damn thing across the room but I refused to upgrade at first waiting for the X, and then hating the X and decided to wait for an X Plus...
 
who would with 300 Billion in the bank and billions coming every single day,
screw their loyal customers and slow down their phones in order to force them on upgrading to more costly unneeded phones?

only greedy Tim could be so dumb
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marekul
This is where it gets sticky. Apple feels it's necessary to throttle your battery because it can no longer function properly. The customer then has the battery tested by Apple and they tell you the battery is still good, and then refuse to replace your battery even if you pay full price.

Have there been cases like this? If so, then yes, I completely agree that this is a fraud and should be punished with all the severity. This is the first time I hear about this though. I understood that the lawsuits are targeting merely the fact that the phones with old batteries are slowed down. Do you have any references that show Apple service manipulating customers like this?
[doublepost=1515254968][/doublepost]
1) Failed to communicate there was an 'alleged' problem with batteries. (From my understanding, battery shutdown issues only applies to very small amount of users, however, throttling update was applied to everyone using the specific model, including the one year old iPhone 7).
2) Decreased CPU power with each iteration of iOS without the knowledge and consent of user. (No one assumes CPU performance issues stemming from an aged battery, as it is simply not a symptom of it.)

Totally agree with 1), not really sure where the 2) is coming from. All we know so far is that phones are throttled based on the battery performance. What makes you say that CPU is purportedly slowed down in addition to this?
 
Its your choice if you want to buy a new battery or a new phone...

This is where it gets sticky. Apple feels it's necessary to throttle your battery because it can no longer function properly. The customer then has the battery tested by Apple and they tell you the battery is still good, and then refuse to replace your battery even if you pay full price.

Can you see how that is confusing to the customer?

It's only confusing if the customer believes that voltage supply issues can only occur with an old battery. Since Apple has specifically stated that it's not just old batteries, but also batteries with a low charge or batteries that are cold that can potentially have an issue with current supply to the CPU...that confusion issue has been addressed. That also eliminates the idea that Apple saying the battery is still "good" would somehow be deceptive re: the throttling feature. A brand new battery on low charge or that gets too cold could have current supply problems too.

I think it's fair to say that Apple could have provided more information initially when adding the software feature to prevent shutdown, but at the same time you would also have to admit that the low power warning at 20% charge already existed + the information about capacity level that Apple considered to be end of life for the battery.
 
Last edited:
I like that they are adding battery features and information as well.
The issue is that they used to have battery information, then they took it away while also putting in in the battery management code that slows down older devices. Perhaps they did it with the best of intentions, but there is certainly room to suspect their motives. If it walks like a duck... Unfortunately, this move will cost them a lot of trust that could have easily been avoided. My opinion is that the sooner Cook and Ives go the better it will be for the Apple community.
 
Just more people looking for a handout - too stupid to realize only the lawyers come out on top in these things - and that’s if they win...
 
Just more people looking for a handout - too stupid to realize only the lawyers come out on top in these things...

yep , apple has lawyers too. the consumer never wins, doesn't matter what side the lawyer is on.
 
You're right; because, unless its a Tesla/Prius/Bolt/Leaf, etc., it doesn't RUN on that battery.

But, speaking of which, and now that you mention it, I wonder what the battery-pack warranties ARE on those vehicles...
Eight years, unlimited miles on my Tesla. 100K miles, five years, 3% degradation. Of course, Tesla has a real battery management system, while phones (and other consumer battery powered devices--including some other manufacturer's EVs) have the bare minimum.
 
Totally agree with 1), not really sure where the 2) is coming from. All we know so far is that phones are throttled based on the battery performance. What makes you say that CPU is purportedly slowed down in addition to this?
I am not sure I understand. The phone is throttled by under-clocking the CPU.
 
Just more people looking for a handout - too stupid to realize only the lawyers come out on top in these things - and that’s if they win...
I think most people are not looking for a handout, and the consumers do win in the end. Apple already lowered the price of a battery replacement and I can almost guarantee that the future iPhones will come with either better batteries or a method to throttle manually. This will also push other mobile phone companies to do the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marekul and Ladybug
I get it Apple could have been more clear about the changes they made to power management but that doesn't mean they were slowing peoples phones down get them to buy new ones.

Wrong - Apple tech support was advising customers that they needed to buy a new phone rather than offer the solution Of replacing the battery to return the phone to normal.
 
Yes, but it should only happen when battery is in bad condition. According to what Apple says at least.

What Apple has said: old battery, battery on low charge, cold battery. The last two can occur with a brand new battery, so it isn't necessarily related to "bad" condition of the battery. Amount of remaining charge or temperature can also negatively affect the amount of current available for the CPU for a given task.
 
  • Like
Reactions: artfossil
What Apple has said: old battery, battery on low charge, cold battery. The last two can occur with a brand new battery, so it isn't necessarily related to "bad" condition of the battery. Amount of remaining charge or temperature can also negatively affect the amount of current available for the CPU for a given task.

Well, sure, but again, I was discussing deferredAnon's claim that Apple has "Decreased CPU power with each iteration of iOS without the knowledge and consent of user" (post #552).
 
Yes, but it should only happen when battery is in bad condition. According to what Apple says at least.
Supposedly, but those batteries are deemed in good health by Apple Support before this fiasco. And batteries in bad condition should be replaced, right? Not throttle people's phone to save the battery. Doesn't make sense.
 
Well, sure, but again, I was discussing deferredAnon's claim that Apple has "Decreased CPU power with each iteration of iOS without the knowledge and consent of user" (post #552).

He appears to be making that claim as a result of either not understanding or not accepting that low charge or cold can potentially cause current problems that trigger a shutdown in a new/healthy battery.
 
As if any of their competition doesn't also have various problems and issues. Let's sue everybody! (the refrain of lawyers who want their own private jets).
The point is they should not have the jank their competition has. That's the point of using Apple products, they're supposed to be better.
 
How about suit for pain and suffering from having to use a super slow iPhone 6+ while i kept waiting for a good upgrade?

At times I wanted to throw the damn thing across the room but I refused to upgrade at first waiting for the X, and then hating the X and decided to wait for an X Plus...

LOL, pain and suffering?! Over a phone?! What am I missing here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: fourthtunz
I said Apple wasn’t doing enough with the $29 battery replacement “discount offer” and a new battery monitoring feature (that would be manipulated, oops, I mean controlled, by Apple). Others apparently feel the same.

I expect more suits to come through... this will be interesting to follow.
 
I have a Microsoft Lumia 650, more than 3 years old. It is just as speedy as bought new. The battery has to be charged around 2 times a day by now, which is normal for a >3 year old battery, but there is no throttling at all. On top of that: The battery is user replaceable and only costs 20 bucks. The whole situation with the Nokia battery is completely transparent. Explain to me why I have to file a lawsuit against Microsoft?

That’s not normal. My kid still gets over a day of use on my old iPhone 6 Plus and it’s over 3 years old now.That Nokia barely got a day of use out of a charge when it was new. There is also no slowdown ‘yet’ on the 6 Plus so I’m not sure if it is excluded from the software ‘fix’ or the battery hasn’t aged enough.
[doublepost=1515260658][/doublepost]
I said Apple wasn’t doing enough with the $29 battery replacement “discount offer” and a new battery monitoring feature (that would be manipulated, oops, I mean controlled, by Apple). Others apparently feel the same.

I expect more suits to come through... this will be interesting to follow.

They have to ‘prove’ that what Apple did was underhanded and for the majority of these lawsuits also prove that Apple did it to make you buy a new phone.

Not sure that will have much success and it’s only the law firms that make money from this as the participants will probably only get a cheque for 10 bucks each as usual. The real cost is to future Apple customers who will pay inflated prices to cover profit loss. The whole class action suit thing is wrong as it doesn’t benefit anyone who actually lost out, just the law firms.

I believe Apple screwed up big time here. They had an issue with some devices shutting down and the engineering team devised a fix that throttled the phone once the battery was at a certain state.

Now the dumb part of this was to do it without advising the user. At a very MINIMUM they should have had a note in the update and a new battery entry which advises of battery state. And, just like on MacBooks, it should advise once the battery requires replacing. It would have been simple to do but the lack of transparency is gonna cost them both cash and lost trust.
 
Last edited:
It's only confusing if the customer believes that voltage supply issues can only occur with an old battery. Since Apple has specifically stated that it's not just old batteries, but also batteries with a low charge or batteries that are cold that can potentially have an issue with current supply to the CPU...that confusion issue has been addressed. That also eliminates the idea that Apple saying the battery is still "good" would somehow be deceptive re: the throttling feature. A brand new battery on low charge or that gets too cold could have current supply problems too.

I think it's fair to say that Apple could have provided more information initially when adding the software feature to prevent shutdown, but at the same time you would also have to admit that the low power warning at 20% charge already existed + the information about capacity level that Apple considered to be end of life for the battery.
Out of topic, but not that much, just consider you're describing the behaviour of a premium product at its 9th or 10th iteration
 
What Apple has said: old battery, battery on low charge, cold battery. The last two can occur with a brand new battery, so it isn't necessarily related to "bad" condition of the battery. Amount of remaining charge or temperature can also negatively affect the amount of current available for the CPU for a given task.

well iPhone's have been around for 10 years and this just finally became an issue within the past two?
 
  • Like
Reactions: trifid
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.