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 More Than 60 Class Actions Over iPhone Slowdowns, Consolidation Likely Next Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This just proves my previous point. A battery can have 100% capacity (lasts just as long) yet still not be able to deliver peak current demands, and therefore, would cause throttling in some circumstances.
I'd bet that if you ran Geekbench (or some App that requires maximum power from the CPU) that you would have seen throttling on your old battery and none on your new battery.
People are assuming battery capacity is what causes throttling. It's not.
Nope. Aging batteries are nothing more than batteries getting old. That happens to every device. Mistake #1 (the ONLY mistake) was not being forthcoming with information about this. Whether intended or not the appearance is that Apple tried to hide this.
Even if Apple manages to somehow get away with this, I hope The Right to Repair bill hits Apple hard and forces them to disclose: repair schematics, testing software and sell replacement parts.
For those that will be up to complain about schematics being "proprietary"... Pro tip, they already are "available". Check Rossmann on YouTube.
For those that will be up to complain about schematics being "proprietary"... Pro tip, they already are "available". Check Rossmann on YouTube.
Apple's problem is not their batteries, it's the phone. A phone should't crash because it's battery is at 80% of it's original capacity. Apple must have thought that too, or they wouldn't have applied a "fix."
[doublepost=1519662835][/doublepost]
So how many devices are you aware of that crash because the battery is at only 80% of it's original capacity.
I can't believe how many people are trying to make this out like it is normal behavior. If it was normal, why apply a "fix" in the software.
We live in an age where reason goes out the window. May be Apple, could of been more transparent, but then one would of thought a company who is seeking to manage the demise of battery performance would be welcome. Of course we will always have individuals whose mindset will focus on motives which in reality never came into play from the outset. But that’s today’s world for you.
It seems that you know everything about batteries and how they work,please educate us.
So many lawsuits over this, but none over the iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, and iPhone 4S being murdered by their updates? Each one of them received more and more bloated updates until they were slowed to a crawl, and then their final iOS versions were all abandoned after a year.
I can't believe you don't understand that's not what these cases are about.
I had the (dis)advantage of seeing the other side of the fence. I moved to Apple only AFTER my Android Nexus 6 did EXACTLY what Apple where trying to avoid - after a number of occasions where it would power down at 50% battery just because I fired up Waze.
The absolute last thing on my mind was thinking about suing Google for a crappy phone - no - my "punishment" to them is I left the Android ecosystem after 5+ years and moved to Apple. My wife came with me as well (she had the same issues).
Coincidently - one of my employees ALSO made the plunge for the exact same reasons.
We did so without needing to engage any legal services - just like normal folk do when dealing with issues like this.
The absolute last thing on my mind was thinking about suing Google for a crappy phone - no - my "punishment" to them is I left the Android ecosystem after 5+ years and moved to Apple. My wife came with me as well (she had the same issues).
Coincidently - one of my employees ALSO made the plunge for the exact same reasons.
We did so without needing to engage any legal services - just like normal folk do when dealing with issues like this.
For everyone explaining that this is normal behavior for batteries could you explain how my iPhone 3 is still functioning normally?
Yeah, it only holds a charge for a few hours, but it doesn't shut off on me.
Same thing with my 2008 MacBook Pro before I replaced its battery. Worked fine for about 10 minutes and then the battery was drained, but it didn't randomly shut down when fully charged.
Yeah, it only holds a charge for a few hours, but it doesn't shut off on me.
Same thing with my 2008 MacBook Pro before I replaced its battery. Worked fine for about 10 minutes and then the battery was drained, but it didn't randomly shut down when fully charged.
So should we start renting our phones instead of buying them? If the battery is only good for two years before the chemical composition breaks down so badly that the phone won't even work, why should we buy these devices? Imagine spending close to $1000 that is guaranteed to fail in two years. That's LUDICROUS.
Perhaps the corporate Apple PR statement claims no malice was intended, but there are countless stories of people with glacial speed iPhones going into an Apple Store and getting their battery checked - being told it was fine (when it wasn't) and getting the hard sell to upgrade the phone.
That's borderline criminal.
But it's not like this attrition is going to end with this battery debacle. Apple will still cripple older phones with newer OS updates like they always have and there's nothing anyone can do about that - except not upgrade.
That's borderline criminal.
But it's not like this attrition is going to end with this battery debacle. Apple will still cripple older phones with newer OS updates like they always have and there's nothing anyone can do about that - except not upgrade.
Actually, that's EXACTLY what the case is about. People are complaining because Apple put into place a system to prevent unexpected shutdowns due to batteries being, well, batteries.
Apple's defense will be to show that the alternative would be devices shutting down randomly and people being JUST as unhappy.
The only thing Apple are 'guilty' of is not telling people in advance - which is NOT something that's going to get you much of a victory.
So, setting aside the merits of these suits...
Does anyone know what the mechanics of this consolidation entail?
At the moment, there are ~60 "lead plaintiffs" and "lead councils." Clearly in a consolidated lawsuit that number would be rather dramatically reduced. How does the court select THE lead plaintiff/council to take the matter forward (presumably all of the rest of the "lead plaintiffs" simply become class members like everyone else)? Do any of them get anything for their presumed trouble? I don't see *either* answer as being a particularly positive thing. If they do get paid, then that implies an easy payday for ambulance chasers who see a situation like this show up in the news. If they don't, then that reduces the incentive for *legitimate* class action plaintiff attorneys to take on cases.
Does anyone know what the mechanics of this consolidation entail?
At the moment, there are ~60 "lead plaintiffs" and "lead councils." Clearly in a consolidated lawsuit that number would be rather dramatically reduced. How does the court select THE lead plaintiff/council to take the matter forward (presumably all of the rest of the "lead plaintiffs" simply become class members like everyone else)? Do any of them get anything for their presumed trouble? I don't see *either* answer as being a particularly positive thing. If they do get paid, then that implies an easy payday for ambulance chasers who see a situation like this show up in the news. If they don't, then that reduces the incentive for *legitimate* class action plaintiff attorneys to take on cases.
Just give up trying to explain this concept in these forums...as my signature explains.
What I can tell you is that out of the 250 odd plaintiffs in the Heartland Data breach (130 Million people affected), the list was whittled down to just 11 after all the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs had been processed (only those 11 were able to show actual demonstrable harm had been incurred) and they got $200 each.
What's interesting is that (admittedly anecdotally) I know more people who reported having their phones shutting down when upgrading iOS versions than slowing down. I now suspect many of them had batteries that were significantly aged and did in fact shut the device down when under peak demand. So, it would make sense that throttling the device would be advisable, to improve the customer experience.
This is not quite a frivolous series of suits but I just don't see much likelihood of success, in part because the plaintiffs would have to show that they are materially harmed by Apple slowing the devices by some arbitrary and variable percentage to ensure the devices continue to operate with the new versions of the OS.
This is not quite a frivolous series of suits but I just don't see much likelihood of success, in part because the plaintiffs would have to show that they are materially harmed by Apple slowing the devices by some arbitrary and variable percentage to ensure the devices continue to operate with the new versions of the OS.
Go check out some Android forums. Crashing because of old batteries isn't an iPhone issue...
THANK YOU!
This is what people don't get - the plaintiffs will have to provide solid concrete proof of actual real harm incurred - and that's assuming this even reaches a settlement phase.
It has NOTHING to do with battery capacity, so why do you keep repeating this?
I'll repeat it again. Capacity has NOTHING to do with this. Throttling is caused by the inability of a battery to deliver the required current. This could happen with a battery at 100% capacity or 40% capacity, at 100% charge or 20% charge.