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

[Blaze4G]

Can’t believe this comment got so many likes.

Apple’s only mistake was trying to apply a software fix to address a hardware issue, but sure, I guess framing it as an attempt to screw their users over to force upgrades is better for garnering views and clicks.

I guess Apple should have just let those iPhones randomly reboot. Users would still have upgraded, and Apple would have saved themselves all that negative press.

I disagree. If Apple made the phones randomly reboot, customers wouldn't just say "time for a new one let me go buy it". They would go to the Apple store and explain to the genius that their phone randomly shuts down. Genius would test and see the battery is the problem. Customer needs a working phone so they pay to fix it and continue on with their life.

However, when Apple slowed down phones unknowingly by customers, they think "my phone is getting old, it's moving so slow". Apple releases new iPhone and claim a 25% increase in speed. Customer is frustrated with their current slow phone and upgrades.

Now you might want to say, the customer will go to the Apple store and complain about a slow phone. Okay, I don't think most would but let's say they do. Genius tests phone and notice the battery is above 80% which doesn't warrant a replacement. Genius tells customer nothing is wrong with the phone. Customer is now certain that their phone is just old and they need to upgrade.

 

[Bacillus]

Just imagine what would have been the situation if there is user replaceable batteries in the mobiles, especially in iPhones!

Indeed. It could have avoided batterygate & Q1 sales plummet

 

[vlad_djkax]

One thing is for sure: This new battery (replaced in the 2nd week of last December) plus iOS 12 nice performance will make me keep my SE for another year, at least.. And I was considering replacing it with an 8 in the middle of this year. (you are probably sick of reading about the astronomic prices of Apple products in Brazil, so... )

On a "not battery thing related" side note: Heck, even my old 5S, which I used while my SE was in the authorized service shop waiting for the new battery, performs nicely under iOS 12, which makes it a great backup iPhone.

 

[ipponrg]

LOL. Apple clearly worked out pros and cons of this update and knew the fix would, overall, delight their customers by fixing a nasty side effect of aging batteries at the expense of performance you would never even notice. It wasn't until folks read the word "throttled", or something, that triggering baseless rage. I just don't get how so many people can't image Apple really might be trying to do right by their customers. Of course they can't just give away new iPhones, but what they did do was a whole lot more than they needed to.

Did you miss the entire story that they got caught which is why they were trying to do right?

If you were led to believe one thing, then found out it was a white lie, wouldn’t you be upset about it because it misinformed your next purchase?

 

[Radon87000]

It wasn't any obsolescence.

It was because it slowed down the phone which people attributed to age. Why didn’t Apple inform the user the battery was wrecked? Why did Timmy suggest one of the reasons for slower iPhone sales was battery?

 

[slineaudi]

It was because it slowed down the phone which people attributed to age. Why didn’t Apple inform the user the battery was wrecked? Why did Timmy suggest one of the reasons for slower iPhone sales was battery?

You would have preferred the phone not be slowed down but instead just crash? And then do you think an iphone that crashes regularly would have not been attributed to age and would not have driven folks to upgrade? A slower old iPhone or a crashing old iPhone. Of course folks would pick the slower phone that doesn't crash. Which they did, and thus they did not upgrade to a new iPhone. It's crazy to me that you would have preferred Apple just say "your iphone is old and the battery is wrecked so it crashes a lot and the only fix is for you to go buy a new iphone". But Apple just isn't that kind of company. Which is what we like about them.

 

[C DM]

Inform the user that the battery is the issue and not stay silent otherwise the user would just upgrade to a newer phone as by the time it’s randomly shutting down the phone is old and common misconception is old things break.

Sure, it's just not in the context of the post to which I replied.
[doublepost=1547649347][/doublepost]

I disagree. If Apple made the phones randomly reboot, customers wouldn't just say "time for a new one let me go buy it". They would go to the Apple store and explain to the genius that their phone randomly shuts down. Genius would test and see the battery is the problem. Customer needs a working phone so they pay to fix it and continue on with their life.

However, when Apple slowed down phones unknowingly by customers, they think "my phone is getting old, it's moving so slow". Apple releases new iPhone and claim a 25% increase in speed. Customer is frustrated with their current slow phone and upgrades.

Now you might want to say, the customer will go to the Apple store and complain about a slow phone. Okay, I don't think most would but let's say they do. Genius tests phone and notice the battery is above 80% which doesn't warrant a replacement. Genius tells customer nothing is wrong with the phone. Customer is now certain that their phone is just old and they need to upgrade.

So in one context with the same battery they would see that there's a battery problem and replace it, but in another context with the same battery they shouldn't?

 

[Blaze4G]

Sure, it's just not in the context of the post to which I replied.
[doublepost=1547649347][/doublepost]
So in one context with the same battery they would see that there's a battery problem and replace it, but in another context with the same battery they shouldn't?

Yes. Because Geniuses were turning back customers that wanted to do a battery replacement because the battery health was above 80% before this whole thing started. Even if the customer was willing to pay they were getting turned back. Customers would not be able to quantitatively show their phone is moving slow or their battery is not lasting as long.

However, if their phone would randomly shut off, they could replicate it by doing intensive task (transcode a video). So even if the genius checks the battery and see it is reporting above 80% they can't give back a customer a phone that is visibly having a major issue.

 

[C DM]

Yes. Because Geniuses were turning back customers that wanted to do a battery replacement because the battery health was above 80% before this whole thing started. Even if the customer was willing to pay they were getting turned back. Customers would not be able to quantitatively show their phone is moving slow or their battery is not lasting as long.

However, if their phone would randomly shut off, they could replicate it by doing intensive task (transcode a video). So even if the genius checks the battery and see it is reporting above 80% they can't give back a customer a phone that is visibly having a major issue.

That is quite a bit of an assumption that they would be able to replicate a single crash and that it would be attributed to the battery directly and not just something being wrong with the phone.

Seems like a lot of narrative is being contributed to fit a desired conclusion. It can similarly be constructed to fit a different conclusion. Certainly makes for an interesting conjecture.

 

[I7guy]

It was because it slowed down the phone which people attributed to age. Why didn’t Apple inform the user the battery was wrecked? Why did Timmy suggest one of the reasons for slower iPhone sales was battery?

Release notes from iOS 10 has this information. Therefore it wasn’t.

 

[Blaze4G]

That is quite a bit of an assumption that they would be able to replicate a single crash and that it would be attributed to the battery directly and not just something being wrong with the phone.

Seems like a lot of narrative is being contributed to fit a desired conclusion. It can similarly be constructed to fit a different conclusion. Certainly makes for an interesting conjecture.

Well even if they didn't attribute it to being the battery the genius would have to do something about it and not give the customer a phone back that's visibly having a major issue. Whether it be a battery replacement or a phone replacement because they didn't know it was the battery. Either way the customer issue would be fixed vs them going to the store and saying their phone is moving slow...

I have experienced the phone shut down issue on a Nexus 6p which was a widespread issue. It was easy to replicate the issue. Play a video / music , turn on location and Google maps with Max screen brightness. Hence why I believe it would have been easy to replicate the issue. So it's not really an assumption.

Go to an Apple store and tell them your iPhone is moving slow. How would they test this? Do you think they would do anything about it if the phone passed all their test?

Now go to an Apple store and show that your iPhone is randomly shutting down. What do you think they would do?

 

[C DM]

Well even if they didn't attribute it to being the battery the genius would have to do something about it and not give the customer a phone back that's visibly having a major issue. Whether it be a battery replacement or a phone replacement because they didn't know it was the battery. Either way the customer issue would be fixed vs them going to the store and saying their phone is moving slow...

I have experienced the phone shut down issue on a Nexus 6p which was a widespread issue. It was easy to replicate the issue. Play a video / music , turn on location and Google maps with Max screen brightness. Hence why I believe it would have been easy to replicate the issue. So it's not really an assumption.

Go to an Apple store and tell them your iPhone is moving slow. How would they test this? Do you think they would do anything about it if the phone passed all their test?

Now go to an Apple store and show that your iPhone is randomly shutting down. What do you think they would do?

They similarly wouldn't attribute much to the battery if the phone is shutting down and the battery tests were passing. They might offer an out-of-warranty replacement, which would still cost a fair bit and give the user the same phone, or tell the user they can upgrade, which plenty of users would likely choose to do. So, basically in either situation the outcome can easily be pretty much the same when it comes to the user being left with choices of paying at least a decent amount of money for an equivalent replacement or paying more to upgrade.

 

[Defthand]

A slower old iPhone or a crashing old iPhone. Of course folks would pick the slower phone that doesn't crash. Which they did, and thus they did not upgrade to a new iPhone.

Folks didn't choose. The choice was made for them. And many did upgrade because the performance hit was noticeable. I'll wager that when the option to choose was added to the phone's Settings, many people disabled Low Power Mode.

Apple wasn't just compensating for degrading batteries. All smartphones have power management features that monitor and compensate for battery insufficiencies. Apple was compensating for an engineering/manufacturing flaw in the power management process that revealed itself as the battery degraded. Apple didn't fix the handicap. They disguised it.

do you think an iphone that crashes regularly would have not been attributed to age and would not have driven folks to upgrade?

Aside from the battery, what degrades on an iPhone that would cause it to slow or crash—especially in a device that is ~2 years old? I have a 2007 MacBook Pro that still functions at its advertised speed. Electronics don't age that rapidly. Apple has been exploiting this perception.

It's crazy to me that you would have preferred Apple just say "your iphone is old and the battery is wrecked so it crashes a lot and the only fix is for you to go buy a new iphone".

If my out-of-warranty iPhone crashed routinely, I would certainly replace it, but not if I was aware that a new battery would restore it. If there is a flaw or defect, I want to be aware. I do not want the problem disguised. If the trouble actually is one of product longevity, I want to know. Why? Because I want to know if there are quality issues with a brand. When I replace my phone, I may choose another brand.

But Apple just isn't that kind of company. Which is what we like about them.

They love you too. They bank on naïveté and unquestioning loyalty such as yours.

 

[Radon87000]

Release notes from iOS 10 has this information. Therefore it wasn’t.

This is what the release notes for iOS 12.1 say for their planned obsolescence feature on the iPhone X

“
Adds a performance management feature to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down, including the option to disable this feature if an unexpected shutdown occurs, for iPhone X, iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus.”

No release notes of any version of iOS 10 mentioned this in so many words.

 

[C DM]

Apple was compensating for an engineering/manufacturing flaw in the power management process that revealed itself as the battery degraded.

What is the flaw there? Is it documented somewhere?

 

[decafjava]

Well I took advantage of the program and am very pleased with my phone's performance and battery life. It wasn't that bad before but I got to push back upgrading for another year or more. Thanks Tim.

 

[macduke]

Normal is very subjective. For me normal is in the 5.5 inch and above range (which is 99% of the market)

They also did come to their sense by discontinuing a phone that wasn’t making them any money.

If they had continued to update it and kept the technology modern and priced it a lot higher, it would have been fine. Nobody I know who bought the iPhone SE bought it because it was cheap. They bought it because they wanted a regular iPhone size like the one they'd had since 2007 and many of them are women. It didn't make Apple money because they didn't put the same nice tech into it that they did their other iPhone and they sold it for cheap, when really it should just be another size option. I think if Apple released an updated iPhone XSE with a taller, full OLED display like the iPhone XS but at around 5" with dual cameras and stainless steel for $899 they would sell a ton of them. Or at the very least an iPhone XE/XRE of the same size but with one camera and liquid retina instead of OLED for $699.

 

[Blaze4G]

They similarly wouldn't attribute much to the battery if the phone is shutting down and the battery tests were passing. They might offer an out-of-warranty replacement, which would still cost a fair bit and give the user the same phone, or tell the user they can upgrade, which plenty of users would likely choose to do. So, basically in either situation the outcome can easily be pretty much the same when it comes to the user being left with choices of paying at least a decent amount of money for an equivalent replacement or paying more to upgrade.

Disagree. With multiple people coming in about their phone randomly shutting down, Apple would investigate and I would think report it is the battery. Customers would now know what needs to be done to fix their issue. I don't think you believe that after hundred of thousands to millions of people reporting random shut downs Apple wouldn't investigate and report that it is their battery is the issue right?

I mean, that is exactly what happened with Google. People complained, Google investigated, found out it was the battery. Google started to repair Nexus 6p out of warranty (at their discretion) and even replace some with the new Pixel XL at the time. Customers now knew what was causing it and if google wouldn't cover them out of warranty they got it replaced 3rd party.

 

[C DM]

Disagree. With multiple people coming in about their phone randomly shutting down, Apple would investigate and I would think report it is the battery. Customers would now know what needs to be done to fix their issue. I don't think you believe that after hundred of thousands to millions of people reporting random shut downs Apple wouldn't investigate and report that it is their battery is the issue right?

I mean, that is exactly what happened with Google. People complained, Google investigated, found out it was the battery. Google started to repair Nexus 6p out of warranty (at their discretion) and even replace some with the new Pixel XL at the time. Customers now knew what was causing it and if google wouldn't cover them out of warranty they got it replaced 3rd party.

If the test for battery passes then they wouldn't think it's the battery, just as it was happening with those coming in with slowed down phones. The assumption is that they would somehow do something more and different in terms of the battery and investigation when some people would come in with some occasional random shutdowns vs. slowness is certainly plausible, but it's still just a conjecture that just fits the conclusion. Similarly a different conjecture can fit a different plausible conclusion as well.

 

[Defthand]

What is the flaw there? Is it documented somewhere?

You won't see it publicly documented by Apple. Apple described it as an isolated "issue that affected only a small percentage of phones" when it first surfaced with the iPhone 6s. Typically, low occurrences are due to the occasional defects that occur during manufacturing. However, the passage of time revealed a different scenario. Apple was compelled to address the matter on every phone. You wouldn't do that if the occurrence and cause was so sporadic that unit replacements would solve the problem. Furthermore, you wouldn't do that if a simple battery replacement could also solve the issue—assuming the battery was the sole culprit.

Qualified tech bloggers who have explored the issue agree that there is a fundamental engineering phenomenon concerning power management that is to blame, and that the affected phones are incapable of addressing it without compromise when the battery has aged. This is an engineering issue, and probably why Apple recently acquired the IP and staff of its power management chip supplier.

My bet is that lawyers will find the documentation you want when they perform their discoveries for the lawsuits that are pending. Meanwhile, if you want a summary of how the Batterygate issue unfolded: https://ifixit.org/blog/11208/batterygate-timeline/

 

[LordVic]

They similarly wouldn't attribute much to the battery if the phone is shutting down and the battery tests were passing. They might offer an out-of-warranty replacement, which would still cost a fair bit and give the user the same phone, or tell the user they can upgrade, which plenty of users would likely choose to do. So, basically in either situation the outcome can easily be pretty much the same when it comes to the user being left with choices of paying at least a decent amount of money for an equivalent replacement or paying more to upgrade.

and since both outcomes ended up with the recommendation of buying a new device, either brand new or refurbed, it shows why this situtaion was so frustrating.

A design defect by Apple, then masked and lied about, with many people, regardless of crashing or slowdown only being told they needed to buy a new device.

if users went into the store with either a phone that was throttled to hell, or crashing. The answer should have never been "buy a new device".

The device flaw was that Apple provided batteries with almost no margin for error. They were so tightly specced to the power draw of the CPU while new, that minor degradation of time was enough to cause problems.

While battery degradation is a normal thing. most users believe that this sort of degradation that outright affects the performance and stability of the device should not happen in within the first 1-4 years of owning a device. In the case of the 6 and 6s at least, this was occuring in some cases as early as the first year. This is a design flaw.

if it's NOT a design flaw, than Apple purposely underspecced batteries to sell newer devices. But that's an argument that would need to show intent. And I'm not ready to jump on the "planned absolescence" argument, since Hanlan's razer IMHO still applies.

 

[C DM]

if it's NOT a design flaw, than Apple purposely underspecced batteries to sell newer devices. But that's an argument that would need to show intent. And I'm not ready to jump on the "planned absolescence" argument, since Hanlan's razer IMHO still applies.

Or their recent CPUs/GPUs are more powerful where in some situations the existing battery tech, when degraded to some degree after use, can't scale.

 

[I7guy]

This is what the release notes for iOS 12.1 say for their planned obsolescence feature on the iPhone X

“
Adds a performance management feature to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down, including the option to disable this feature if an unexpected shutdown occurs, for iPhone X, iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 Plus.”

No release notes of any version of iOS 10 mentioned this in so many words.

Yeah they are there. So no “planned obsolescence”, especially with the cheap battery replacements.

 

[LordVic]

Or their recent CPUs/GPUs are more powerful where in some situations the existing battery tech, when degraded to some degree after use, can't scale.

In this particular case, Apple would have needed to provide larger batteries to overcome this issue. But they made the concious decision to keep the battery sizing / performance the same as previous devices, despite the increased load the CPU put on it.

again, this **** happens. it's not the end of the world. I Believe they learned their lesson regarding the improperly specced batteries.

the issue that most of us have isn't even the throttling. it's the secrecy behind it and how they handled the issue up until they were called out by dozens of lawsuits.

sometimes it's better for a company to say "yeah, we ****ed that up" from the start and get in front of something like this, than spend over a year denying it while secretly trying to resolve it.

 

[Blaze4G]

Or their recent CPUs/GPUs are more powerful where in some situations the existing battery tech, when degraded to some degree after use, can't scale.

With your reasoning then Apple should have put a bigger battery if that was the case. So a design flaw then?