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

[Analog Kid]

did you not see where I said all else remaining equal?

Sorry, are you angrily asking if I saw you say it before you said it? Are you Benjamin Button?

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?

It's a bit hard to trace your logic through the inconsistent set of units and concepts.

Let me just skip to the bit where I point out that you keep talking about reduced capacity when the problem is increased source resistance. The problem isn't power or current to support your device, it's the ability to hold a voltage for a given load current.

The problem isn't that the battery life is reduced, the problem is that if the system demands enough current, the voltage dips below the regulator limit and the device hard resets rather than gracefully power down.

the problem by the way would not be the same

So, by saying they would deteriorate the same amount (they wouldn't) you're saying the internal resistance is the same which means the voltage dips the same amount under the same load which means they would have the same problem.

Apple very likely download logs from your phones and devices on a regular basis. They know the usage profile.

They do not. I have that feature disabled on my device.

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.

So, leaving all the technical aspects aside, I think this is the core of your argument: "They could have done something else". Yes, they could have. They could have made the battery bigger, they could have made it smaller, they chose the battery they did.

They didn't get it wrong, like there was a pass/fail criteria, they made a design tradeoff that suited many people just fine. To my earlier point, putting in a larger battery would have been a different product, you can't just put a "bigger battery in the same device". Everything changes. Bigger battery means either bigger phone or different feature set.

Apple is free to optimize the battery, hardware, dimensions and firmware of their complete system as they choose.

So the fact they could have done something different doesn't justify a suit. The fact that what they chose didn't fit your use case doesn't justify a suit. Even if what they chose didn't suit most people's use cases, it doesn't justify a suit.

If the argument is, "I wish they chose a different tradeoff, so I'm going to sue" then this is completely frivolous.

 

[H2SO4]

Sorry, are you angrily asking if I saw you say it before you said it? Are you Benjamin Button?


It's a bit hard to trace your logic through the inconsistent set of units and concepts.

Let me just skip to the bit where I point out that you keep talking about reduced capacity when the problem is increased source resistance. The problem isn't power or current to support your device, it's the ability to hold a voltage for a given load current.

The problem isn't that the battery life is reduced, the problem is that if the system demands enough current, the voltage dips below the regulator limit and the device hard resets rather than gracefully power down.


So, by saying they would deteriorate the same amount (they wouldn't) you're saying the internal resistance is the same which means the voltage dips the same amount under the same load which means they would have the same problem.


They do not. I have that feature disabled on my device.

So, leaving all the technical aspects aside, I think this is the core of your argument: "They could have done something else". Yes, they could have. They could have made the battery bigger, they could have made it smaller, they chose the battery they did.

They didn't get it wrong, like there was a pass/fail criteria, they made a design tradeoff that suited many people just fine. To my earlier point, putting in a larger battery would have been a different product, you can't just put a "bigger battery in the same device". Everything changes. Bigger battery means either bigger phone or different feature set.

Apple is free to optimize the battery, hardware, dimensions and firmware of their complete system as they choose.

So the fact they could have done something different doesn't justify a suit. The fact that what they chose didn't fit your use case doesn't justify a suit. Even if what they chose didn't suit most people's use cases, it doesn't justify a suit.

If the argument is, "I wish they chose a different tradeoff, so I'm going to sue" then this is completely frivolous.

Not angrily anything. Nice try.

Here look, if BMW had chosen a battery that after two years only just started the car, chances are they picked one too small. The same has happened here.
OBD tells them the number of times your, (and countless hundred of thousand and possibly millions of owners), will start their cars and under what conditions they drive them, draw current using auxiliaries both when the car is on and off.
They will pick a size and quality of battery to suit based on this.
If we saw lots of posts on the BM forums about battery capacity not meeting expectation this would be similar.

There is a pass fail criteria actuality and in the UK, products must be fit for purpose. That includes wearable items like batteries.
Next question.

 

[4jasontv]

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).

It was better because it didn't require the user to ensure it was enabled.

 

[Analog Kid]

Not angrily anything. Nice try.

Here look, if BMW had chosen a battery that after two years only just started the car, chances are they picked one too small. The same has happened here.
OBD tells them the number of times your, (and countless hundred of thousand and possibly millions of owners), will start their cars and under what conditions they drive them, draw current using auxiliaries both when the car is on and off.
They will pick a size and quality of battery to suit based on this.
If we saw lots of posts on the BM forums about battery capacity not meeting expectation this would be similar.

There is a pass fail criteria actuality and in the UK, products must be fit for purpose. That includes wearable items like batteries.
Next question.

Angry or not, it's generally better to assume I only read things after they're written...

I get you wish things were different, that doesn't make them wrong. The battery fit the purpose of a small profile, light weight, mobile device. The law doesn't say "must make every last customer happy".

You're trying to substitute your opinion for the law.

 

[C DM]

It was better because it didn't require the user to ensure it was enabled.

The user doesn't need to ensure it's enabled now, it's done automatically. The user simply has an option to disable it if it does kick in, if that is desired, and more importantly the user is aware of what could be behind it and can opt to get the battery replaced in a situation like that.

 

[H2SO4]

Angry or not, it's generally better to assume I only read things after they're written...

I get you wish things were different, that doesn't make them wrong. The battery fit the purpose of a small profile, light weight, mobile device. The law doesn't say "must make every last customer happy".

You're trying to substitute your opinion for the law.

LOL, I don't wish things were different at all, I'm not affected by this.
Again, the law, (at least in the Uk), states that goods must be fit for purpose. That is NOT my opinion. Fit for purpose also means must last a reasonable time, pls read it before spouting more tripe.

Apple are forfeiting 113 million reasons as to why they got this wrong. Fact.

 

[Analog Kid]

LOL, I don't wish things were different at all, I'm not affected by this.
Again, the law, (at least in the Uk), states that goods must be fit for purpose. That is NOT my opinion. Fit for purpose also means must last a reasonable time, pls read it before spouting more tripe.

Apple are forfeiting 113 million reasons as to why they got this wrong. Fact.

Apple are forfeiting 113 million to avoid a lengthy litigation against a plaintiff with bottomless taxpayer pockets and a political motive (ie. to "send a message to the Googles [sic] of the world"). Seems suing Google might be a better way to send a message to the Googles of the world, but hey, I'm not in elected office.

So you think Apple got it wrong, but you don't wish they'd done it different... That seems a bit mean spirited, but ok.

You're applying your opinion as to what is "fit", what is the "purpose", and what is "reasonable" and for whom it must be reasonable. Also, I doubt the Arizona Attorney General is representing The Crown.

 

[Baymowe335]

I told you guys this would be financially meaningless for Apple and it was.

 

[H2SO4]

Apple are forfeiting 113 million to avoid a lengthy litigation against a plaintiff with bottomless taxpayer pockets and a political motive (ie. to "send a message to the Googles [sic] of the world"). Seems suing Google might be a better way to send a message to the Googles of the world, but hey, I'm not in elected office.

So you think Apple got it wrong, but you don't wish they'd done it different... That seems a bit mean spirited, but ok.

You're applying your opinion as to what is "fit", what is the "purpose", and what is "reasonable" and for whom it must be reasonable.

Say what you like, it seems I need to repeat.
One hundred and thirteen million reasons. If their case has no merit then they'd leave it alone.

How does what I want change if something is wrong? It doesn't It seems mean spirited to you. You.

Again read the sale of goods act, take some case law from it. Want me to link it for you?

It's a phone, I think it's reasonable to assume it should last a couple of years without a battery issue. It's purpose is to make calls, take photos and browse the net amongst other things and should be fit to do that without problems for a minimum of the length of the guarantee and in some cases longer.
That is not an opinion. Not sure where you're getting that from.

 

[H2SO4]

I told you guys this would be financially meaningless for Apple and it was.

Insignificant yes, meaningless?
No.

 

[Analog Kid]

One hundred and thirteen million reasons. If their case has no merit then they'd leave it alone.

It's not $113m versus $0, it's $113m versus the cost and distraction and ongoing press battle of the suit. If the plaintiff's case had merit, they wouldn't have settled so easily.

Again read the sale of goods act, take some case law from it. Want me to link it for you?

Not sure why this has any bearing on a case in the US... I have no interest in reading the full act, but if you can link to precise legal criteria of what makes a battery "fit" for the "purpose" of a mobile phone and what is a "reasonable" life and that shows without interpretation that Apple violated this by extending the product life with firmware modifications, then I'd be interested to read it.

My guess is it's all language that boils down to a subjective determination and that it's your opinion that Apple violated UK law and was thus sued in US courts.

I think it's reasonable to assume

Opinion

 

[H2SO4]

It's not $113m versus $0, it's $113m versus the cost and distraction and ongoing press battle of the suit. If the plaintiff's case had merit, they wouldn't have settled so easily.


Not sure why this has any bearing on a case in the US... I have no interest in reading the full act, but if you can link to precise legal criteria of what makes a battery "fit" for the "purpose" of a mobile phone and what a "reasonable" life and that shows without interpretation that Apple violated this by extending the product life with firmware modifications, then I'd be interested to read it.

My guess is it's all language that boils down to a subjective determination and that it's your opinion that Apple violated UK law and was thus sued in US courts.


Opinion

You’re funny. It’s $113 vs zero. Don’t get it twisted. The option of paying zero dollars is there.
This issue has also affected UK users.
My point about what it’s purpose and how fit it was is lost on you.
Let’s break it down.
Is it used for making calls?
Is it used for browsing the net?
You see where I’m going.
Are those points opinions?

opinion and fact are not mutually exclusive.
I think or in my opinion, 2+2=4.
See how that works?

 

[Baymowe335]

Insignificant yes, meaningless?
No.

Pretty much the same thing in this case.

 

[Baymowe335]

You’re funny. It’s $113 vs zero. Don’t get it twisted. The option of paying zero dollars is there.
This issue has also affected UK users.
My point about what it’s purpose and how fit it was is lost on you.
Let’s break it down.
Is it used for making calls?
Is it used for browsing the net?
You see where I’m going.
Are those points opinions?

opinion and fact are not mutually exclusive.
I think or in my opinion, 2+2=4.
See how that works?

Zero isn’t an option. Settling for a meaningless amount of money to end the nonsense was money well spent.

Truth doesn’t matter here. Bad press matters and even if Apple could defend itself and be “right,” it doesn’t behoove them to continue.

 

[Analog Kid]

It’s $113 vs zero. [...] The option of paying zero dollars is there.

Ok, that's going to take some explanation..

This issue has also affected UK users.

The investigation involved 34 states and the District of Columbia

So, UK users probably aren't relevant here. But if they were:

My point about what it’s purpose and how fit it was is lost on you.
Let’s break it down.
Is it used for making calls?
Is it used for browsing the net?
You see where I’m going.
Are those points opinions?

There apparently still isn't an objective criteria for what's fit or what's reasonable for the purpose you're trying to define.

opinion and fact are not mutually exclusive.

But the belief that one substitutes for the other summarizes everything wrong with the modern era...

 

[4jasontv]

The user doesn't need to ensure it's enabled now, it's done automatically. The user simply has an option to disable it if it does kick in, if that is desired, and more importantly the user is aware of what could be behind it and can opt to get the battery replaced in a situation like that.

Until they turn it off and suddenly it is an issue. The user knowing is a burden that could be avoided by allowing the device to manage it. Informed choice does not make complexity better.

 

[C DM]

Until they turn it off and suddenly it is an issue. The user knowing is a burden that could be avoided by allowing the device to manage it. Informed choice does not make complexity better.

If they turn it off then it's on the user as the user took action to do something on their own. Just like they can turn off Bluetooth and not be able to connect to Bluetooth devices after that, or all kinds of other functions that the user has been able to enable or disable since the beginning (nor counting those that added over time as more features were introduced).

 

[CthuluLemon]

Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of Law will tell you that the PR costs and general attorney expenditures over years of dragging a case like this through the courts far outweigh the price paid to settle early out of courts. The fact that the parties suing Apple agreed to settle also indicate that they knew they wouldn't get more by going to trial. Apple is far from dumb. There is no admission of guilt, only the cost of doing business in the overly litigious USA.

Lol, so you’re saying Apple was dumb to consider collateral costs? Lol, don’t make me into a straw man just to prove a flimsy argument. My sympathies that the reality of our judicial system and its place in society at large doesn’t match with a fantasy.

 

[H2SO4]

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.

When did I say that's how things should be done?

 

[Jonathan Leclerc]

Lol, so you’re saying Apple was dumb to consider collateral costs? Lol, don’t make me into a straw man just to prove a flimsy argument. My sympathies that the reality of our judicial system and its place in society at large doesn’t match with a fantasy.

Where exactly did you read that I suggested that Apple was dumb to consider the various costs of litigation? I think I was pretty clear that Apple most certainly considered these costs, as it should, in the overall decision to settle. You can do as much grandstanding as you want (and frankly I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to say), but the reality is that even if you didn't do anything wrong, it is oftentimes best to settle out of court. Ask any other lawyer worth their salt and they would tell you just as much. There is a reason why 95%+ of litigation never reach trial.

 

[CthuluLemon]

Where exactly did you read that I suggested that Apple was dumb to consider the various costs of litigation? I think I was pretty clear that Apple most certainly considered these costs, as it should, in the overall decision to settle. You can do as much grandstanding as you want (and frankly I'm not even sure I understand what you're trying to say), but the reality is that even if you didn't do anything wrong, it is oftentimes best to settle out of court. Ask any other lawyer worth their salt and they would tell you just as much. There is a reason why 95%+ of litigation never reach trial.

My sympathies are still with you. I hope, for your sake, that you are able to reconcile your fantasies with reality sooner rather than later. As it stands, you're still speaking of how you think things should be rather than how they are. It's all a matter of your opinion, which you may be sad to hear, has no bearing on the real world.

 

[Jonathan Leclerc]

My sympathies are still with you. I hope, for your sake, that you are able to reconcile your fantasies with reality sooner rather than later. As it stands, you're still speaking of how you think things should be rather than how they are. It's all a matter of your opinion, which you may be sad to hear, has no bearing on the real world.

Well, dear sir, since you are most certain that I live in a fantasy, would it be too much to ask which one of the facts I submitted you are disputing? You see, it is a bit too trivial for you to ascribe everything to opinion, and yet at the same time fail to engage with the facts.

 

[Jonathan Leclerc]

You’re funny. It’s $113 vs zero. Don’t get it twisted. The option of paying zero dollars is there.
This issue has also affected UK users.
My point about what it’s purpose and how fit it was is lost on you.
Let’s break it down.
Is it used for making calls?
Is it used for browsing the net?
You see where I’m going.
Are those points opinions?

opinion and fact are not mutually exclusive.
I think or in my opinion, 2+2=4.
See how that works?

Leaving everything else aside for a moment, I don't understand why anyone would think that there was a "zero dollar" option available for Apple here. Years of litigation and appeals costs a real fortune, even if you prevail in court in the end. On top of that, there are the non legal costs of bad publicity through years and years of keeping the story in the press every time there is a development in the litigation process (trials, testimony, judgements, appeals). On bad publicity alone a company like Apple will prefer to pay millions to make it go away sooner rather than later. And the lawyers on the other side are well aware of this, and will use it to extract as much settlement money as they can as result (which is personally beneficial for them). This is not 113$M on one side and 0$ on the other. That's just not what the legal or business reality is. And I find that's a pretty basic thing to understand regardless of whether you think Apple did something wrong or not.

 

[K??]

Why have media outlets framed this as terrible and and shocking in the headlines? You do realize that every mobile computer ever made throttles the CPU to prevent overheating. Is this ubiquitous practice worthy of condemnation when applied to Power Management as well as Thermal Management?

It is advocating for the consumer to push an update that eliminates the interruption of unexpected shutdowns. Any temporary limitations in place by Performance Management were imperceptible by most consumers. While in-line with comparable restrictions, used for Thermal Management by every other mobile computer in the consumer market.

 

[C DM]

Any temporary limitations in place by Performance Management were imperceptible by most consumers.

But not all, many of whom couldn't figure out what was happening and Apple wasn't of much help until it all started to come out independently. That's essentially what was mostly behind all of this.