It's not really about the money, is it? It's about the image apple has. This will tarnish it.
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
It's not really about the money, is it? It's about the image apple has. This will tarnish it.
They did. They started throttling well above the 80% threshold, where Apple's own diagnostics state that the battery is "Healthy" and would not replace it (neither under warranty or even if you tried to pay for it).
They did this to phones where the battery was still under warranty.
They also removed access to battery health diagnostics. Apple was perfectly happy with users believing their device just happened to slow down to half performance because they added 10 new emoji, leaving them with the only solution of replacing their phone with a new one.
Careful, Icarus. I'd actually understand if Samsung did the exact same thing. The truth is this: Unexpected shutdowns—which are about as unpleasant a user experience as one can get—are unavoidable without the hardware demanding less power. Fixing the hardware such that it demands less power is optional on the manufacturer's part to improve a user's experience. One of these exact shutdowns led to data corruption on my old iPhone 6s. I hadn't backed up in a while (my mistake, yes) and I lost a lot.
Not doing so, however, means some customers will eventually experience unexpected shutdowns…just like some of my Galaxy-owning friends have experienced—and mentioned to me—because Samsung elected not to do what Apple did.
Moreover, you'll notice that I never said it's the customer's fault or that I hope they lose the lawsuit(s). All I said is that the lawsuit(s) will fail…because they will. There's a difference. Apple should've been more transparent as they've discovered in the PR backlash, but these lawsuit(s) have a minimal chance of succeeding.
And that was your choice. The fact that you apparently did no investigation nor did you take your iPhone to an Apple service center for diagnosis doesn’t prove Apple forced you to buy a new phone. Your logic was probably, “Oh crap, my iPhone is wonky when it gets near 50% charge. I better buy a new one.”
months later and some still dont understand what went wrong.................
No-one buys a smartphone with the expectation it'll run as good as new after three years. Comparing a smartphone to a Tesla is just being horribly silly.
[doublepost=1519669130][/doublepost]
At their current rate of sales, if the back-of-a-napkin math I just pulled together is roughly right, $100M = 1 days profit for Apple.
And that's assuming it even reaches settlement.
[doublepost=1519669212][/doublepost]
Hahahahahahahaha!
Oh my, so funny....
Oh, wait, you were being serious??? 
I can't believe people are relying on this argument when Apple have clearly overstepped beyond battery limitations.
I've used competing devices where the batteries retained useful capacity for over 3 years then had shorter battery life approaching 4 years but never once did they prematurely shut down. I'm all for legal legislation to enforce at least a 2 year battery life and warranty. 1 year or less is the kind of quality you get from $5 eBay batteries so Apple should stop using them.
I'd bet that if Apple tried to sell customers a new battery, they'd end up with the same reaction. Customers would gripe about having to buy a new battery and would insist Apple should have included a better battery to begin with.
If it hadn't been for that Geekbench measurement going viral, I doubt many customers would have noticed a huge difference. But they DEFINITELY would have noticed their phone shutting down.
No-one buys a smartphone with the expectation it'll run as good as new after three years. Comparing a smartphone to a Tesla is just being horribly silly.
[doublepost=1519669130][/doublepost]
You know what I meant.
At their current rate of sales, if the back-of-a-napkin math I just pulled together is roughly right, $100M = 1 days profit for Apple.
And that's assuming it even reaches settlement.
[doublepost=1519669212][/doublepost]
Hahahahahahahaha!
Oh my, so funny....
Great! I’ll look forward to my $5 iTunes card after this is settled a few years from now - of course the lawyers will all make millions from this...
I'm definitely not hating on Apple. Could they have said we are implementing this feature because of "xyz" sure, which probably would have gone over well for them.
Or maybe it is but nobody knows the answer. Not having the answer to something does NOT automatically make it complicated.
Based on what I've seen with CPUDasherX, the phone will run at a lower speed with no tasks going on even with a fully charged battery if the battery is old enough
I am had the battery replacement now in 3 of our 4 6s models. Everyone of them now runs at 1848 MHZ @ idle. I'm quite pleased that I decided to keep my 6s.
Last edited:
No-one buys a smartphone with the expectation it'll run as good as new after three years. Comparing a smartphone to a Tesla is just being horribly silly.
[doublepost=1519669130][/doublepost]
At their current rate of sales, if the back-of-a-napkin math I just pulled together is roughly right, $100M = 1 days profit for Apple.
And that's assuming it even reaches settlement.
[doublepost=1519669212][/doublepost]
Hahahahahahahaha!
Oh my, so funny....
So what’s your point?!?!....they were still in the wrong and will have to pay for it...
The point is that there's folk here who seem to think that, even IF this should get anywhere (big huge if), that it'll mean more than a hill of beans to Apple. Given how much revenue they make, and how much of this they'll write off etc., this will be no more than a light scratch to them.
Thanks for proving our point on why Apple should be punished. Customers would not notice the battery is the reason why their phone is so much slower. But if itvrandomly shutdown they would definitely carry it to apple for service.
So customers chalked up their phones being slow because it's old not because the battery is defective. Persuading them to upgrade.
Thanks for proving our point.
https://www.fastcompany.com/4051325...-the-battery-issue-have-a-tough-case-to-prove
[doublepost=1519671464][/doublepost]
No point has been proven here. You know how hard that is to prove IN A COURT OF LAW?
Are you seriously claiming that rechargeable batteries don't weaken in both capacity and voltage over time?
Lol I am talking about proving it to you not the court of law. You yourself admit people wouldn't notice that their battery is defective because Apple slowed their phones down.
Care to tell me EXACTLY where I stated that? This should be interesting...
Dont worry, Apple can use the BILLIONS in tax cuts they got on foreign earnings brought back into the US and use that.
Well maybe next time they will put that 100 mil into better batteries instead of waiting and scheming on their customers and gettin all this bad PR.