Apple Replaced 11 Million iPhone Batteries in 2018, Up From 1 to 2 Million

[gnasher729]

Better to spend $1,000 on a new phone then $79 on a new battery? Odd decision.

He didn't say he would have replaced the phone. If I had a one year phone in my pocket and could replace the one year old battery with a new one for $29, I would do it immediately. Even if the old battery is fine, because the new one will be fine one year longer.

 

[avanpelt]

My battery was replaced in March with over 1200 cycles on it. BUT I still have issues. I believe my wifi chip is damaged. It takes a LONG time to to connect to the wifi thru mail. I get dropped safari connections too. Tons of lag, esp keyboard in messages and mail.

That's certainly possible. When I had the battery in my iPhone 7 replaced last month, the NFC radio was apparently damaged during the process. My iPhone went from being able to recognize that a POS (point of sale) machine was trying to establish an NFC handshake almost 100% of the time to working less than 10% of the time. It constantly said 'Hold Near Reader' despite being practically on top of the reader.

I took it in twice following the battery replacement. The first time, the genius wiped the phone and set it up as new. That seemed to fix the problem temporarily, but the problem returned again within hours of the time I left the Apple Store. On my subsequent trip to the Apple Store, they recognized that the phone was not behaving as it should in terms of recognizing a nearby POS machine and they offered to replace the phone.

My main concern was not that I couldn't use Apple Pay with the phone -- my Apple Watch worked just fine in 100% of the situations where my phone refused to recognize the POS machine. My main concern was that trying to sell an otherwise perfectly fine iPhone 7 with a temperamental NFC radio was not something I wanted to do.

Unfortunately for your situation, battery replacements are only covered for 90 days, I think; so you may not be able to get Apple to look at the phone again without paying the out of warranty fee.

 

[kruegdude]

LOL, that's nothing to sue over? The phone has a design defect that causes it to reboot at peak current demands on average-wear batteries, something no other model of phone has ever had on a systemic basis, which Apple tried to hide by pushing out a stealth update to slow the processor to the point of being unusable to prevent peak current, then lied about the reason behind the update, and that's nothing to sue over? Pass me some of that Koolaid you're drinking please.

Actually they’re piña coladas. We sip them on the beach. You know, those sandy beaches we’re head over heals about.

 

[gnasher729]

So at most, 10M people opted for a new battery over a new phone. This doesn't explain all the lower iPhone sales.

That's ten millions.

 

[kruegdude]

When home from School, my son went in to get his iPhone 6 battery replaced - just before the deadline.
They refused to fix it because they observed a very slight bend in the phone. Double whammy from Apple.

Maybe it was his YouTube video of him bending the iPhone that did it.

 

[gnasher729]

Obviously Apple's reasonable battery replacement program was a big commercial failure... extending the upgrade schedule of millions of users.

Quite the opposite. That's 11 million customers who _will_ buy another iPhone, and since their old phone worked for years more than planned, they may very well pay out for some iPhone X. Long term, this will make Apple a lot of money. And think of all Android users that want to buy a new phone because their battery gets old, and someone says "if you had bought an iPhone, that battery replacement would have cost you $29".

 

[LordVic]

They do.
[doublepost=1547568591][/doublepost]
Typical tinfoil hat comment.

This isn't tin foil hat. This is an accurate timeline of events for those of us who were paying attention when it occured. Your lack of paying attention or ignorance on the matter doesn't change the facts of the events that happened.

it's verifiable. Apple lied about throttling phones. Got caught.

Was the throttling a decent work around for the design issues? yes. But it's HOW Apple handled this which is bad.

So far, you haven't actually posted anything to refute anyones comments, just insulted them... so when are you going to add anything of substance other than just throwing around ad-hominem attac

 

[edenwaith]

Bad for Apple in the short term, but great for the existing phones in the long term which will hopefully continue to be useful for a couple more years.

 

[Ankou_Sabat]

No smartphone vendor on the planet can "fix" voltage issues in phone sized lithium ion batteries. Every cell phone on the planet will have voltage supply issues if the battery is degraded, if the battery is exposed to cold temperatures, or if the battery charge is low. Those issues are specific to current lithium ion technology in phone sized batteries. It really has nothing to do with Apple specifically.

That sounds like their problem not mine. I paid for product to do as advertised XYZ. If they fail to do so thats on them. Again the issue is that they were completely obtuse about the battery being a simple fix even in the face of constant evidence and talking with their support people then secretly throttling to just quite people who would have otherwise just bought a new battery. Again the issue isn't that they chose to implement their workaround with throttling and new batteries instead of a recall to address their implementation and engineering flaw its that they were complicit in not being forthcoming about it and happily accepting you'd buy a new one instead.

 

[mi7chy]

That's a lot of defective batteries. Hope Apple learned their lesson not to cheapen out on critical components.

 

[dantastic]

What do you mean “would get cancelled”?
...
There is much frustration with Apple that can be justified these days, but I don’t believe that Apple was arbitrarily cancelling appointments just to keep from replacing batteries.

No Apple owned store where I live but a couple of authorized service providers. Cancelled, as in apple.com would accept the appointment but I got an email sent from the store saying they couldn't do it. They wouldn't tell me so in writing but talking to them they said Apple didn't send them any batteries.

 

[scrapesleon]

If this affected upgrade rates then I won’t be surprised if iOS 13 has “mysterious” severe performance problems on everything that came before the X series.

Absolutely magical ‍♂️

 

[gnasher729]

That's a lot of defective batteries. Hope Apple learned their lesson not to cheapen out on critical components.

My battery was four years old. Not defective at all. Just normal wear. Nice to get it replaced for $29. Thanks, Apple.

 

[512ke]

Let’s say conservatively that 5 million people didn’t upgrade because they were able (like me) to upgrade their batteries cheaply. Multiply by $800 average iPhonr selling price = a good chunk of the slowdown.

Random thoughts: 1) Apple’s low cost program made people think about replacing their batteries. Apple helped this enter public consciousness to a much greater degree and become a “thing”. 2) Why upgrade to a new phone when the old one does everything most people want and need?!!

My grandma had a saying: Make it do. Wear it out. Use it up. Do without.

 

[admo]

I’m surprised the iPhone X battery was included in the $29 offer. I took advantage and replaced the battery in my day 1 X on 12/31. Was at 88% health, now obviously like new again, and I might just keep it another year because of it. Wouldn’t have done it at the old $80 price. Odd decision.

Your battery was at 88% health, and they still replaced it for $29? You're only eligible if the battery is at 80% or lower. My 6S+ was at 79% and I too took advantage of the offer.

 

[Jamers99]

I had 4 batteries replaced. (2) iPhone 7's and (2) iPhone 8+'s Battery Health was 83%, 86%, 88%, and 91% after just 15 months of use. I figured I might as well get the batteries replaced now for cheap.

 

[LordVic]

Your battery was at 88% health, and they still replaced it for $29? You're only eligible if the battery is at 80% or lower. My 6S+ was at 79% and I too took advantage of the offer.

There are two different metrics for testing batteries, the default test that Apple has does not detect how much current the phone can maintain at max, just how much battery power it stores.

Here's the typical car analogy. Compare the phone battery to the cars fuel tank and pump. The battery does similar to these two units in the car.

Fuel tank is how much fuel... or in the battery case how much charge it holds.
The Fuel pump determines rate of flow and maximum flow of fuel possible.

The basic tests that apple use and determine if a battery needs to be replaced used to only test for How much the battery holds. or in this case, how much is in the tank.

the issues with the batteries that affected this situation was not how much the tank held, but how well the pump was working. Like a car, if you stomp on the gas, but the pump fails to deliver required amount of gas. you get a stall. Similar, if the CPU went to 100% very fast and suddenly, but the battery couldn't deliver enough "fuel", than the phone would shut off.

The batteries that Apple put in the device were fine from a "fuel tank" perspective, but were underspecced from a "fuel pump" side of things. So their tests didn't catch it, and the batteries hit that "degraded" state much faster than intended. Most devices generally are built in with enough "overhead" in the pump portion that it should be 2-5 years before the threshold is hit that a phone would shut down due to insufficient power. Unfortunately due to the underspecced battery, this was occuring in 1-2 years. Most of us consider that insufficient.

 

[forerunnerg34]

My iPhone 6S Plus was shutting down and rebooting when the battery was low and the ambient temperature was very hot or very cold, until the update that "slowed down phones". Once I had installed that update, those issues stopped, but the phone ran slower. That's nothing to sue over.

When the battery is low I don't think phones reboot, they just shut down.
Anyway, I believe the issue was that they used cheap, underpowered batteries, the "slow down" was to try to cover it.

 

[Val-kyrie]

Why this hyperbole? "absolutely NOTHING"? No one claimed that the revenue miss was directly connected to the replacement program, Tim Cook wrote that it was a contributor out of quite many others and surely several of those who replaced the battery chose not to upgrade their phone.

Apple actually made an additional $29 on me due to the battery replacement program. I would not have replaced my battery otherwise and I am not interested in any more iPhones unless Apple reintroduces an SE form factor.

 

[mi7chy]

Your battery was at 88% health, and they still replaced it for $29? You're only eligible if the battery is at 80% or lower. My 6S+ was at 79% and I too took advantage of the offer.

12% drop in capacity for a one year old iPhone X is considered defective or at best engineered for obsolescence to force early upgrade. When it reaches three years it'll be worse with premature shutdown and throttling at 64% compared to your three year old iPhone 6S+ at 79%. Apple will do what's most profitable and won't have his best interest so he made the smart consumer decision forcing Apple to replace the battery.

 

[slineaudi]

My iPhone 6S Plus was shutting down and rebooting when the battery was low and the ambient temperature was very hot or very cold, until the update that "slowed down phones". Once I had installed that update, those issues stopped, but the phone ran slower. That's nothing to sue over.

Thanks for posting this. Apple released that update to make aging iPhones more stable (which probably makes them a lot less likely to be replaced) and they get accused of cheating the consumer. As if anyone would be ok with a phone that was a faster at peak use but crashed at the same time. So, Apple releases software to address the issue and then offers huge discounts on battery replacement and they just get torn to bits over both. It boggles the mind!

 

[NufSaid]

They didn't "slow" the phones to make people want to buy a new phone, the "slow down" was the opposite since people rarely notice their phones getting slower, which is why you are so surprised when you get a new one.

The tech bloggers and youtubers looking for clicks held them hostage - I wish Apple would have fought back. This was going to kill sales, I stated it then, and it has happened now.

The one benefit is you now get a good time to buy stock in a company that has hoards of cash and no debt - a rare thing on wall street.

 

[NT1440]

That's a lot of defective batteries. Hope Apple learned their lesson not to cheapen out on critical components.

You mean worn out batteries.

 

[9081094]

Quite the opposite. That's 11 million customers who _will_ buy another iPhone, and since their old phone worked for years more than planned, they may very well pay out for some iPhone X. Long term, this will make Apple a lot of money. And think of all Android users that want to buy a new phone because their battery gets old, and someone says "if you had bought an iPhone, that battery replacement would have cost you $29".

This is only assuming that those customers would have bought a new iPhone instead. There is no evidence Apple would have sold 11 million new iPhones. It’s typical Tim Cook thinking instead of acknowledging that their current offerings aren’t that compelling to buy.

 

[Cosmosent]

Interesting that "the Number" is ONLY 11M units, as Cook used it as one of "the Excuses" (on Jan 2nd) as to why AAPL won't hit their target number for this current Qtr.

Units Sold this Qtr is probably 45M or os.

Even IF ALL 11M had opted for a new iPhone instead of the Battery Replacement Program, then the number would still ONLY be @ 56M units sold.

That would still be down considerably from the 77.316M units sold 1Q18.

Cook's excuses don't fly !