A totally irrelevant statistic; there's no way you can prove cause and effect there. Many folk will take up the $29 offer just to extend the life of their device, irrespective of any other reason (e.g. Me).
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
A totally irrelevant statistic; there's no way you can prove cause and effect there. Many folk will take up the $29 offer just to extend the life of their device, irrespective of any other reason (e.g. Me).
Remember Antennagate? How much did owners receive for that class action?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
$15. Or a free bumper case.
What's interesting is Apple offered the free bumper case BEFORE the class action was settled. So the settlement was actually the same as what Apple already started to do willingly. Or a cash equivalent.
Apple is now offering $29 battery replacements. I'm not sure how much more the lawyers are going to be able to extract from Apple (if they're successful) since they have already dealt with the issue.
The $29 replacement will most likely be the end of it. Since this first was reported, I told everyone this would end up a big nothing. Wait until these are consolidated and this entire thing just fades away.
If anything, it was probably a net positive. We get better battery monitoring, $29 replacement batteries on old out of warranty devices, and Apple gets more foot traffic in their stores and happy customers when their issue is fixed.
Only a small amount of people will get mad enough to switch to Android, and trust me, they'll be back after going that route.
And ironically, because of this, Apple will divert money that could be used to research better battery technology to blood sucking lawyers.
Not completely irrelevant. Apple will very likely know the serial numbers of throttled devices (probably in the diagnostic data). Apple will also know the serial numbers of battery replacements. It's easy to match this to see how many batteries they replaced for real issues and how many they replaced for "goodwill". It's also easy to see how many people affected by throttling DON'T come in for battery replacements. This would let Apple know what percentage of devices out there they've actually fixed.
I'm gonna concede the issue to you - you raise a good point there - I'd not thunked about the Serial #'s
You have your own definition of what constitutes a “bad battery.” Apple had theirs. I have mine.
My bad! Thanks for checking that.
And that's the cruz of this; there's no legal requirement for them to 'fix' this for free. Apple doing the $29 offer - AND opening up to everyone - was a smart move. Bet the Apple bean counters and lawyers did the math on that one and realized it was still a net gain for them.
Nah - they're probably still well under the expected legal budget for the year!
This issue is not about Apple preventing iPhones from shutting down; it is about Apple up-selling customers new iPhones when in fact customers should have been informed that a new battery would restore the performance of their iPhone. This is a major point you seem to be overlooking.
Regardless of Apple's true intentions--know one except Apple knows for sure--it comes across as an up-sell. Compared to selling a battery, selling an iPhone to a consumer generates more profit and looks better to shareholders and the board when reviewing company sales.
I am not sure that I would call mistake 1 a "mistake." I think it is very intentional. Apple is under strong pressure to continue to sell more iPhones. This means that it must make the next iPhone more appealing than the last--whether or not I agree with their design direction. The problem is that Apple can design a CPU that increases performance but it seems that battery technology has not kept pace with the ever-increasing power requirements of the CPUs. Thus Apple can improve performance of its iPhones with newer ARM CPUs, but because of the limitations of battery technology, it is unable to maintain those performance increases over time. Once the CPU draws more power than can be supplied, it becomes unstable and shuts down. Thus Apple chose to write software which will slow down the CPU and sacrifice performance in order to maintain stability and keep the iPhone operating. In sum, Apple is using software to mitigate the limitations of battery technology.
That and not telling consumers that there was a solution to restore performance which was / is cheaper than buying a new iPhone.
I think this was more about a decision to optimize initial performance. Think of it like Intel's turbo mode on its CPUs. Apple's ARM CPUs function well and outperform the competition in the short term, but in the long term the performance scales back.
I am unaware of anyone or any website which runs tests on mobile platforms once the battery is no longer new. This is something I would like to see--how many cycles does the peak performance of Apple's hardware last before it starts to scale back?
Wow, that's going to very a VERY tough sell.
Again, I refer you to Heartland Data breach - where Heartland fully admitted they were breached and fully admitted loss of up to 130M 'customers' data.
11 people got $200. Period.
Based on...?
[doublepost=1519666317][/doublepost]
Seriously? Truly brainwashed by Apple.
https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/04/data_security_b.htm
[doublepost=1519667172][/doublepost]
Other class action lawsuits.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/s...ou-must-know-about-class-action-lawsuits.html
If we're talking about the store employees I'm not sure we can characterize them as lying; I'd wager they weren't trained or given the tools to know better. That'd be a management problem.
On another note, can anybody explain to me why the iPhone's battery is expected to hit 80% health roundabout 500 cycles while the iPad and watch are 1000 cycles? Honest question. The only think I can think of is thermal consideration, i.e. phone goes into pockets and the the other two don't - but that's just speculation on my part. I'm asking because this would probably be a whole lot less of an issue if the phones had the same threshold.
I should have put that into my post, but FS&F will get that regardless. I know that the Nirvana of "if we don't participate, they'll go away..." but those don't seem to happen. It's pretty bad here, where my kid knows the commercials of all of the ambulance chasers.
Anyway, I do appreciate what you've thought about on this, and this is one of those things where thinking people can disagree. My wife is one of those thinking people and she does with me.
Just to show you normal use will get a long way, my battery is 95% and it's 16-17 months old.
Edit: iPhone 6S
Edit: iPhone 6S
Last edited:
Yeah, me too, like I have had to do for decades with every battery powered device I've ever owned. My recently replaced iPhone 4s had just outlived its second battery, and was randomly shutting down at 30-40% charge when I pushed it too hard. The outrage over batteries not lasting forever is comedic. If nothing else comes of this, a lot of people are going to learn that they should try replacing batteries when their devices aren't working right.
Research indicates more than one settlement with regard to Heartland breach.
One type went to “card issuers” who covered or held harmless their individual card-carrying folks.
Another type to individuals who proved harm. .
The $60 million went to VISA “card issuers”.
American Express card issuers got much less. Don’t know about others.
Individuals who proved actual harm? See below, quoted from a website story:
“Heartland was supposed to pay out at least $1 million to victims (and up to $2.4 million). If less than $1 million worth of victims were found, the rest would go to non-profit organizations focused on protecting consumer privacy rights. That leaves $998,075 for those non-profits.
So, let's summarize:
- Actual victims got: $1925
- Heartland spent $1.5 million to find the people to give out that $1925.
- Somewhere around $998,075 goes to non-profits
- The lawyers who brought the lawsuit? They got $606,192.50. For helping 11 people get less than $200 each. Nice work if you can get it.”
Apple is just plain wrong. How would you like to spend 100K on a Tesla and all of sudden your 3 year old car starts to slowdown and feel sluggish? Then you come to find out Tesla is slowing down ? I think not. Apple is in for a nice little ride. It really doesn't matter to Apple since they have tons of money and can pay their way out of this situation. Every 1 million customers Apple loses 2 million jump on board the Bandwagon called Apple.