Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Now Faces More Than 60 Class Actions Over iPhone Slowdowns, Consolidation Likely Next Month
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'll not deny that there's million$ of good reasons why Apple should be doing better on things like this. They could also start by putting a few bucks into their PR department that seems to be woefully underfunded.
You actually have this backwards. The "fix" (slowing down the phone) that Apple implemented would _prevent_ this from happening. Without this "fix" what you are saying would be possible.
The toughest thing here is that these people are going to have to show material damages/losses from Apple slowing down their phone a little bit every now and again. That's going to be UNBELIEVABLY difficult. First: they have to prove that the fix _did_ slow down their phone... then they're going to have to prove that they lost some amount of money because of it.
Seems unlikely.
Their marketing department is going strong. Apple ran one of two advertisements what seemed like every hour throughout the Olympics on NBC and NBCSN. One about the iPhone X portrait lighting and another about the Apple Watch and how it saved people's lives. I think the iPhone X was a 30 second ad, but the watch advertisement was at least 60 and maybe 90 seconds. I can only imagine how much that cost.
Would probably help if you read apples official statements on it, like how it’s not only old batteries that are affected.....
You're right--the plural of anecdotes is not "data." But my (snarky) anecdote was used to demonstrate a logical fallacy (something I see you have pointed out in this thread yourself; in this particular case, the fallacy was bad inductive reasoning), and in that context, use of an anecdote is appropriate. I get my panties in a twist when people draw generalizations as universal facts (which is what happened in the original post to which I replied). A single anecdote debunks those typically poor claims.
The $29 battery replacements and the upcoming iOS options actually won't be as relevant, legally speaking, as other issues. The legal issue is the harm caused. The harm in most of these lawsuits is about the harm *already* incurred. So what happens going forward can mitigate the future harm and thus the scope, but plaintiff lawyers are still going to be licking their chops over what's transpired to date.
As a person who experienced multiple shut-downs every day because of battery issues, I'd much rather have a slightly slower phone than one that randomly reboots. 11.3 will give you the option to let your phone shut off at inconvenient times - so, if you if you prefer that headache, you'll get your way in the coming weeks.
It seems to be pretty normal from my reading, I think the issue newer phones have higher and higher power needs from the batteries. Battery tech hasn't evolved much over the last several decades...
I didn't say you claimed one thing or the other about what the result will be. My "if you think" line was not directed at you but rather to people who think that. Poor choice of pronoun on my part after the preceding discussion where I was directly addressing you.
And actually, people sue all the time because they're "unhappy." Emotional pain and suffering inflicted--that garbage. But that's not what this case is about.
You're probably right. That is how consumers are typically compensated.
You need to familiarize yourself with the Rules of Evidence. Not all evidence has be tangible.
A judgement against Apple is the least of Apple's concerns. No doubt, they can afford it. What they can't afford, is lasting damage to their reputation and brand image. If the trial(s) happen, and this matter makes headlines in the general news, even the least affected of Apple's customers will perk up when they hear that Apple may have concealed information that caused customers to unnecessarily purchase another phone.
Didn't say marketing - I was talking about their Public Relations department - totally different thing.
That said, yup, their marketing department doesn't seem to be suffering...
I think you're confused about what was said.
I very much stand by the word "generally." In fact, it is the perfect word. My original post (go follow the arrows all the way back to the beginning) was in reply to some guy who said, "I can’t believe people are suing because they don’t understand how batteries work."
This makes your whole attempt to insult what I know about electronics, well, irrelevant. (That premise is also incorrect, but meh.) The second half of your paragraph, too, is not what this case is about. As for the first half, now you're on to something! Let's review what you said, with emphasis added this time:
Iiiiiiiiiinteresting. Mmmhmmmmm.
Because Bendgate and the Touch Disease lawsuits have really hurt them, right?
I'll forgive you if you'd forgotten about that - most people have - it happened before 'yesterday'.
The one that shows low battery and either let me charge it or get the battery replaced.
What Apple did was wrong! They only gave one choice and that was to replace the phone - possibly upgrading it to another Apple phone. This was sneaky and unethical.
This was not about "low battery"... it was about "low voltage". i.e. the battery still has plenty of "charge"... but can't supply it fast enough to meet the instantaneous needs of the phone (like during heavy processing, graphics use, etc.).
Without "slowing down" the phone the phone would simply turn off... even if the battery was 90%+ charged.
The "fix" that Apple implemented actually kept phones going... preventing a loss of data (or any other kind of loss).
Really going to be hard to prove that Apple caused some sort of material damage here....
Simple question to all the folk out there who claim they are a victim of this and brought a new phone as a result. Can you PROVE - with enough evidentiary proof to satisfy a judge - that you ONLY brought the phone BECAUSE OF the 'slowdown'?
Bear in mind this cannot be just verbal testimony - you're going to have to back it up with hard evidence, e.g. a chat transcript from Apple where you where told by Apple that this was the only course of action, or where you informed them that this was your chosen remedy (said chat transcript needs to be backed up with an affidavit confirming it's validity).
The crickets will start chirping in 5...4...
Bear in mind this cannot be just verbal testimony - you're going to have to back it up with hard evidence, e.g. a chat transcript from Apple where you where told by Apple that this was the only course of action, or where you informed them that this was your chosen remedy (said chat transcript needs to be backed up with an affidavit confirming it's validity).
The crickets will start chirping in 5...4...
To be fair, slowdowns are certainly the biggest reason why someone would upgrade from a 6/6S to an 8.
The form factors and features are so similar that performance is the biggest difference. I can't imagine most people would spend $700 for a marginally improved camera.
The fact that people had no idea that changing a battery could restore performance because Apple deliberately withheld that information, removed access to battery info, and told people whose devices were being significantly throttled that their batteries are "healthy" (not that anyone would suspect a battery that seems fine to adversely affect performance, which is unrelated), makes it not so clear cut as you (for whatever personal reasons) seem to wish it were.
What I find is so odd is how the Spectre and Meltdown Intel processor flaws likely affected far more users over a longer period of time and yet there doesn't seem to be any ill will or financial damage to Intel Corp. Yet, people are making such a big stink over Apple's processor slowdown via an OS update which was easily explained away with solid reasoning. It is only speculation that Apple deliberately slowed down older iPhones in order to sell more newer iPhones and that will never be proven. It's hard for me to believe most of the Apple customers who had their iPhones slowed down actually went out an bought a new one for that reason. If most did by new smartphones, then my understanding of human nature is seriously flawed. If they didn't really need a new smartphone at that point in time, then they probably should have waited until they could reasonably afford to buy a newer iPhone.
What makes you think that slow performance isn't the most compelling reason people upgrade phones? Especially to new phones that aren't all that different, just faster.
[doublepost=1519676134][/doublepost]
Telling customers their battery is "healthy" and refusing to replace it while secretly slowing their device down because of an "aging" battery is blatantly dishonest. It can't be both ways.