Apple Paying $113 Million to Settle U.S. iPhone Throttling Investigation

[s66]

It had caused people like me to upgrade our phones sooner than desired. I actually upgraded to the iPhone X thinking my phone wasn’t good enough running the new iOS. Had I known I could just replace the battery, it could have been a different story

If Apple had said, “we are dialing your phone down because of battery concerns” BEFORE the debacle (even thru sites like Macrumors), most people would appreciate the transparency instead of finding out AFTER that the phone had been dialed down.

Had they not slowed down your phone a bit with it's worn out battery, then you would have a phone that turned itself off every time you used it a bit too hard. I guess you find that better ?
I had one that turned off often .... sucks. The updated software fixed that a lot.

If they did tell people to upgrade the phone instead of replace the battery: then yes: they deserve a slap on the wrist for doing that. But AFAIK Apple themselves did not do that (at least not widely).

But that said your X was faster than a brand new 6 or 6s by a lot anyway. So if you wanted a faster phone then you got a faster one by buying the X. And the difference between them was much more than the software fix ever did in losing performance.

It's all blown way out of proportion.

For the record we did own a 6s and a 6 and upgraded both to an X the day it came out. Not because our 6s and 6 were a tad bit slower, but because the X was so much better in all aspects (still have that X BTW)

 

[C DM]

My point was that Apple is obligated to explain how they conserve battery as much as they are obligated to explain how iMessage works.

That's somewhat different from what's behind all of this where a change that was made caused some noticeable differences for some and Apple didn't really acknowledge what might be behind those changes in the beginning, which in turn didn't allow some of those affected people to properly troubleshoot and deal with their devices (by let's say just replacing the battery, or disabling the performance management functionality, which is an ability that came around only later).

 

[C DM]

This seems so pointless and greedy by Apple customers. Apple is trying to make their devices work for a bit longer and this is how they’re rewarded? ‘Murica! 😒

If they did tell people to upgrade the phone instead of replace the battery: then yes: they deserve a slap on the wrist for doing that. But AFAIK Apple themselves did not do that (at least not widely).

That was indeed one of the main parts of what's at the center of it all, not really the performance management that was put in place, but how it was communicated and how it wasn't something that was brought up as a potential cause when people turned to Apple with devices that were no longer performing as well as they did before after the feature was enabled.

 

[Shasterball]

Had they not slowed down your phone a bit with it's worn out battery, then you would have a phone that turned itself off every time you used it a bit too hard. I guess you find that better ?
I had one that turned off often .... sucks. The updated software fixed that a lot.

If they did tell people to upgrade the phone instead of replace the battery: then yes: they deserve a slap on the wrist for doing that. But AFAIK Apple themselves did not do that (at least not widely).

But that said your X was faster than a brand new 6 or 6s by a lot anyway. So if you wanted a faster phone then you got a faster one by buying the X. And the difference between them was much more than the software fix ever did in losing performance.

It's all blown way out of proportion.

For the record we did own a 6s and a 6 and upgraded both to an X the day it came out. Not because our 6s and 6 were a tad bit slower, but because the X was so much better in all aspects (still have that X BTW)

My phone is over 3 years old. It’s battery is allegedly completely degraded. It holds a charge for a whole day. And, importantly, even though my phone is not throttled, it has not magically turned itself off even when playing resource intensive games for quite a bit of time.

Apple messed this one up. And that’s ok folks.

 

[chickenninja]

It’s a bogus claim to begin with. I had the iphone which was throttled, it could crash with 30% battery life remaining, because the battery couldn’t deliver stable power to sustain the performance of the chip, it was so annoying to have your device crash because some random app decided to try a summersault. The throttling fixed that, and really was an absolutely essential update, it greatly enhanced the user experience. I never once felt that the throttling took away from my experience, it gave me my device back. It was customer and user care at it’s finest, a difficult but welcome performance compromise.

 

[C DM]

It’s a bogus claim to begin with. I had the iphone which was throttled, it could crash with 30% battery life remaining, because the battery couldn’t deliver stable power to sustain the performance of the chip, it was so annoying to have your device crash because some random app decided to try a summersault. The throttling fixed that, and really was an absolutely essential update, it greatly enhanced the user experience. I never once felt that the throttling took away from my experience, it gave me my device back. It was customer and user care at it’s finest, a difficult but welcome performance compromise.

The underlying issue wasn't really with that as much as with how that was enabled and not acknowledged initially even when various people came in with issues related to their device not working like it did before in relation to it (without knowing that that's what was behind it and without Apple letting them know that that could be playing a role in it and that essentially the issue mainly came down to the battery no longer being in good shape and could likely be remedied by the battery being replaced).

 

[Killbynumbers]

So Apple is paying $613 million to settle this fiasco. I missed my chance to get my $50. Oh well. What's a few hundred million amongst friends, I guess.

I had 4 iPhones I should have been eligible to get money from this for BUT because I didn't update them to the eligible iOS version during the time period this was happening, I get nothing.

 

[4jasontv]

That's somewhat different from what's behind all of this where a change that was made caused some noticeable differences for some and Apple didn't really acknowledge what might be behind those changes in the beginning, which in turn didn't allow some of those affected people to properly troubleshoot and deal with their devices (by let's say just replacing the battery, or disabling the performance management functionality, which is an ability that came around only later).

Neither changing the battery nor disabling the feature were user options. Customers were more than welcome to replace the battery, and it might solve their issue, but Apple was under no obligation to disclose that. In retrospect adding the feature was probably a bad idea. Hence my initial comment. They tried to do the right thing by taking care of the customer by removing their need to be involved. People complained so they added a toggle. People complained. Apple offered lower cost battery replacements. People complained. You give an inch...

 

[C DM]

Neither changing the battery nor disabling the feature were user options. Customers were more than welcome to replace the battery, and it might solve their issue, but Apple was under no obligation to disclose that. In retrospect adding the feature was probably a bad idea. Hence my initial comment. They tried to do the right thing by taking care of the customer by removing their need to be involved. People complained so they added a toggle. People complained. Apple offered lower cost battery replacements. People complained. You give an inch...

If Apple enabled a feature that could affect customer experience and customers came to Apple asking about their devices with that experience why wouldn't it make sense for Apple to mention that that could be behind it or at the very least that a degraded battery could be behind it and a new battery could help (vs. not saying much about it beyond essentially offering a newer device for purchase)?

Seems like the way it actually ended up where the information about it became available and controls for it were added is fairly appropriate. If it was like that from the beginning there wouldn't much of that "give an inch" to apply.

 

[SteelMacMac]

My two cents...

...this entire lawsuit is dumb and should not have even happeend.

Thanks for your thoughtf commen, it really made me see things in a new light LOLOLOLO

 

[H2SO4]

Slap on the wrist? its the complainers that should be slapped. Apple did the right thing, perhaps they messaged it poorly, but in the end they were working to help older phones retain their ability to make emergency phone calls when power was low. And people who do not understand the technical facts just spread more falsehoods. Just goes to show, no good deed goes unpunished. Yep, I know, my position is unpopular. Oh well.

Fail. Apple knew about it and in a lot of cases did not offer battery replacements, (at a cost), until they were forced. The battery was not fit for purpose. They undersized it.
Apple know exactly how you use your device and know therefore how big the battery needs to be to maintain charge, stop talking BS.
It should be 10 times that.

 

[H2SO4]

I have no idea what a "proper" amount should be. But it shouldn't be "High" just because Apple made a lot of money any particular year. It should be an amount that fits the specifics of the situation. Just like I shouldn't have to pay a lot more or less than someone else on a traffic violation because of my income. If $113 million is what the court is calling "fair", then so be it. They should pay what they owe, not a percentage of their annual income.

Things should be means tested.
What deterrent is a $60 parking fine to a millionaire?

 

[4jasontv]

If Apple enabled a feature that could affect customer experience and customers came to Apple asking about their devices with that experience why wouldn't it make sense for Apple to mention that that could be behind it or at the very least that a degraded battery could be behind it and a new battery could help (vs. not saying much about it beyond essentially offering a newer device for purchase)?

Seems like the way it actually ended up where the information about it became available and controls for it were added is fairly appropriate. If it was like that from the beginning there wouldn't much of that "give an inch" to apply.

Because Apple’s solution was proprietary and explaining it risked giving the feature to their competitor. The feature as initially implemented is better than it is now.

 

[G5isAlive]

Fail. Apple knew about it and in a lot of cases did not offer battery replacements, (at a cost), until they were forced. The battery was not fit for purpose. They undersized it.
Apple know exactly how you use your device and know therefore how big the battery needs to be to maintain charge, stop talking BS.
It should be 10 times that.

Sorry, size is not the issue here. battery aging is. battery capacity goes down with use. the throttling was just at the end of the battery's lifetime, and at the end of a charge at that. this is a lot of noise about nothing, just people feeling entitled for no reason. But sure, go ahead and keep farting into the wind.

 

[ipponrg]

Because Apple’s solution was proprietary and explaining it risked giving the feature to their competitor. The feature as initially implemented is better than it is now.

The idea is not proprietary. The implementation could be. They did not need to disclose their implementation

 

[MEJHarrison]

Things should be means tested.
What deterrent is a $60 parking fine to a millionaire?

Argue all you like. That's not how things are done. Thus, it really doesn't matter how much Apple made last year. It's not part of the equation.

 

[ineedanaccont]

Just to put things into perspective around fines and penalties.

Boeing Faces $20 Million Fine by F.A.A. (Published 2020)

The agency proposed the penalty over the installation of unapproved equipment in the 737 Max and other aircraft.

www.nytimes.com

Boeing Faces $20 Million Fine by F.A.A.​

The agency proposed the penalty over the installation of unapproved equipment in the 737 Max and other aircraft.

Boeing killed 346 people... No one went to jail... the CEO had the resign again no jail time keeps all his money.

Also...

Apple Must Pay $502.6 Million to VirnetX, Federal Jury Rules

VirnetX Holding Corp. won $502.6 million against Apple Inc. after a federal jury in Texas said the maker of iPhones was infringing patents for secure communications, the latest twist in a dispute now in its eighth year.

www.bloomberg.com

Apple Must Pay $502.6 Million to VirnetX, Federal Jury Rules​

 

[Brandon916]

Sorry, I’m not going anywhere.

No, I don't think the average person understands. For example, I'm not sure if you're above or below average but you don't seem to understand that it's not about saving the battery but about preventing periods of high current through the higher internal resistance of an aging battery from depressing the voltage at the terminals and causing the system to reset. It doesn't save the battery at all, it prevents your device from resetting when the reported coulomb count remains high.

I know from my own experience that average people thought their iPhone 5s were failing because they kept resetting. I suggested they just get the battery replaced and they'd argue "but it says it's at 60% when it resets, it's not the battery".

I also know average people don't read release notes, so average people wouldn't have gotten that message to begin with.

What the average person did hear is a media storm claiming Apple is intentionally slowing their device in the latest update versus Apple saying they're doing it to improve your user experience. Average people who don't understand why decisions are made feel weak in this world and thus tend to assume they're being victimized and nothing sells YouTube ads like some good old fashioned FUD.

The long and the short of the entire argument here is that Apple should be punished for not writing something nobody would read. If Apple did disclose every change they made, they'd then be criticized for burying it in the fine print among a large number of inconsequential changes. There's always a suit to be had if you're looking for a victim.

Damn, the avg person is straight up dumb or am I and you that super smart?

 

[C DM]

Because Apple’s solution was proprietary and explaining it risked giving the feature to their competitor. The feature as initially implemented is better than it is now.

Doesn't seem like there's anything better about compared to what it is actually like now (and really should have been from the beginning, especially given what it all resulted in).

 

[C DM]

Sorry, size is not the issue here. battery aging is. battery capacity goes down with use. the throttling was just at the end of the battery's lifetime, and at the end of a charge at that. this is a lot of noise about nothing, just people feeling entitled for no reason. But sure, go ahead and keep farting into the wind.

Except, again, the underlying issue wasn't really with that as much as with how it was all done initially where it was enabled and not acknowledged in the beginning even when various people came in with issues related to their device not working like it did before in relation to it (without knowing that that's what was behind it and without Apple letting them know that that could be playing a role in it and that essentially the issue mainly came down to the battery no longer being in good shape and could likely be remedied by the battery being replaced).

 

[H2SO4]

Sorry, size is not the issue here. battery aging is. battery capacity goes down with use. the throttling was just at the end of the battery's lifetime, and at the end of a charge at that. this is a lot of noise about nothing, just people feeling entitled for no reason. But sure, go ahead and keep farting into the wind.

Here consider this;

I put a 500mA battery into a device and after 1 year it starts to struggle. This is because is can't handle the current peaks required after this time and the drop in performance that goes with it.
I put a 20Ah battery into the same device and guess what after a year despite the same level of deterioration it can still do the job provide enough current to do that job.

You should be able to inhale my fart quite nicely now.

 

[ackmondual]

Frivolous. If they only messaged it better out of the gate, this would have been viewed as a good thing.

Yeah, I'm getting the impression that this is more of a "don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining" type deal.

This is a really bad precedent. There is no way to tell customers everything that is changing, I'd be shocked if anyone in Apple could dictate a list of everything that's changing, so something will always be left off that list and someone will always feel aggrieved.

This wasn't manipulation of customers, this is customers not understanding technology and nurturing their paranoid delusions about how the world is out to get them.

Problem is, people just think Apple should be able to do everything since they're a one trillion dollar company, and well on their way to making that 2 trillion. Plus, a lot of things Apple has done to make tech popular is to "dumb it down" for the masses. I think we've come a long way from having to tell them that "this is compatible with all MP3 players and iPod", but still

 

[Analog Kid]

Here consider this;

I put a 500mA battery into a device and after 1 year it starts to struggle. This is because is can't handle the current peaks required after this time and the drop in performance that goes with it.
I put a 20Ah battery into the same device and guess what after a year despite the same level of deterioration it can still do the job provide enough current to do that job.

You should be able to inhale my fart quite nicely now.

You can’t put a battery that’s 40 times bigger into the same device.

Also, it won’t be the same level of deterioration. If it were, it would have exactly the same problem because this isn’t a question of capacity but resistance.

 

[H2SO4]

Sorry, size is not the issue here. battery aging is. battery capacity goes down with use. the throttling was just at the end of the battery's lifetime, and at the end of a charge at that. this is a lot of noise about nothing, just people feeling entitled for no reason. But sure, go ahead and keep farting into the wind.

Oh dear, you appear to have zero idea of how a battery works, let me exaggerate for you to demonstrate.

A 12V laptop battery will provide for example a certain watts per cell. This will typically be 2-6Ah.
A 12V industrial battery, (that I am working with right now), will provide 2500W per cell for about 10 mins to 9,6v cut off. This is 90Ah.

Similarly, the very old decrepit 12V battery I took from my car years ago still has voltage at the terminal and will run 300W inverter amongst other things.

Everything else remaining the same, which do you think will fall below the power/current required to support your device first?

Honestly before you come back with any BS, go google about battery capacity and peak currents, have a quick look at short circuit currents too, (that part will give you an idea of the absolute current spike on might be able to deal with).

To summarise, a 20% drop in capacity for a 100Ah block will leave it with more oomph than a 20% drop in capacity with a 10Ah block.
How do you clever boys not see this?

 

[H2SO4]

You can’t put a battery that’s 40 times bigger into the same device.

Also, it won’t be the same level of deterioration. If it were, it would have exactly the same problem because this isn’t a question of capacity but resistance.

I am well aware of that, and the problem by the way would not be the same, did you not see where I said all else remaining equal?
Apple very likely download logs from your phones and devices on a regular basis. They know the usage profile. They know what likely prolonged usage a phone's going to get, they know what short bursts are likely to crop up. They have data from the battery company.
They aggregate all of that data and they pick a point and say, 'X size is sufficient'. they got that point wrong.

They know how long your battery is likely to last.