this is an upgrade from their "Miss Fish" boat.Nobody wins here but the lawyers, who now have a new yacht named “Slow down and Chile”
this is an upgrade from their "Miss Fish" boat.Nobody wins here but the lawyers, who now have a new yacht named “Slow down and Chile”
You’ve completely misled the point. It’s not the fact they did it, it’s that they didn’t notify customers about this fact.
Apple is accused of having programmed a limited lifespan into some products to force users to replace their phones sooner than necessary
The company has also settled a case with France's consumer watchdog for 25 million euros ($29.7 million) for failing to tell iPhone users that software updates could slow older devices.
If my memory is correct, certain batch of iPhone 6S was using subpar battery. Apple had recall program for iPhone 6S.
If Apple choose to settle, it is to me, they are acknowledging the guilt. If Apple truly think they are doing no wrong, they have time and resources to fight in court.
Companies sometimes settle nuisance suits, for various reasons.If my memory is correct, certain batch of iPhone 6S was using subpar battery. Apple had recall program for iPhone 6S.
I mean, by the time battery performance management thing started, which was iOS 10.2... iPhone 6 was around two years old and iPhone 6S was around one year.
Therefore, I think if Apple has to implement battery performance management for a two year or one year old battery, then battery quality is questionable. Therefore, you can also conclude Apple was using subpar quality components in order to purposely shorten iPhone’s life span, so they can get new sales.
But, I know you won’t agree and many others here won’t.
If Apple choose to settle, it is to me, they are acknowledging the guilt. If Apple truly think they are doing no wrong, they have time and resources to fight in court.
Apple is free to not do business in those countries.So stupid. I hate how countries like Russia, China, and Chile are pushing Apple around.
This has nothing to do with this article. One is about consumer rights and getting what you paid for without the manufacturer changing or limiting the product after purchasing it. Pretty straightforward to uphold in court.Why so upset?? Apple prides itself in "following the laws of the nations it operates in" while doing the bidding of the Chinese. So, if following local laws is a good enough reason to turn a blind eye to what's happening in China, then $3.4 million to the Chileans should not be a problem.
Are Flash Alerts turned on in Accessibility > Audio Visual ?I have two SEs (1st generation). I've had new batteries put in both within the past year.
And yet, ever since I made the grandoise mistake of upgrading to iOS13, the battery life just keeps getting worse, not better, with each OS release and update. I'm on 14.4.whatever, and I hardly use the phone at all. Maybe 1 or 2 phone calls (15 minutes maximum), and some text messages, but, really, not much.
Yet somehow the "Flashlight" (only accessible through the Control Center and the Photo App) is using 70% of my battery throughout any given day. I have turned it on then off (no change), I've restarted the phone, I've reset and even restored my 2nd SE.
It's just getting ridiculous. I really did have decent battery life until I was forced into the iOS13 upgrade; Apple would not let me download the 12.x security updates; only on older devices.
I still think it's a racket. Especially when there is no "Flashlight" app to delete.
To me genocide is well over the line, I can't see where the debate is about that. Sadly the debate in these corporations isn't about the moral issue, it's about how much money they would lose.The other is the moral issue whether a manufacturer should produce and sell products in countries that violate human rights. The problem is where does a company draw the line?
So basically, you’re arguing that no American company should do any business with China? Be it production, sales, ... anything... because of genocide atrocities. Ok, Great. But in that case: is it up to individual companies to decide this, based on their bottom line, public image or whatever moral compass they have? Or should the federal government make that decision, to avoid unfair competition between those companies that do and those that don’t want to break ties with China?To me genocide is well over the line, I can't see where the debate is about that. Sadly the debate in these corporations isn't about the moral issue, it's about how much money they would lose.
Ah. The usual cliche has arrived.Nobody wins here but the lawyers, who now have a new yacht named “Slow down and Chile”
Cherry picked examples?Ah. The usual cliche has arrived.
No.
In the long run consumers win. In the short run consumers win even if that victory is small.
- Which position would you rather be in;
- Broken phone and no money in your pocket.
Broken phone and $50 in your pocket.
The next time something like this gets to court, the manufacturer will find it harder to argue as they’ve shown form for being dishonest.
That’s not planned obsolescence. That’s planned mitigation of inherent obsolescence.yes I agree this is a form of planned obsolescence, even though the intention behind this is not to lower performance, it's to fix stability problems.
Not cherry picked at all. I simply used the example given in the main article.Cherry picked examples?
The examples are more like:
- $50
- $0
And right the manufacturer has a past history of being dishonest. Don’t think that enters into innocent until proven guilty. But maybe it works differently outside of the US.
And what is the limit? Where does Apple mention this limit?How does limited lifespan equate to a phone running longer, even when under power management? And how does that equate to planned obsolescence?
The law doesn't work with the narrative of "incredibly naive". The judges are supposed to argue on the merits of the case. "Being dishonest" in the past doesn't seem to be a merit as you blithely suggest.Not cherry picked at all. I simply used the example given in the main article.
A history of being dishonest most certainly has a bearing on a trial, it may not get as far as affecting the outcome but the judge and/or jurors most certainly have it in the back of their minds.
It's incredibly naive to think otherwise. Incredibly.
Not sure what you mean. Everything on the face of the earth has a limited lifespan, and it's determined by the software, hardware, abuse, etc.And what is the limit? Where does Apple mention this limit?
Judges are human, don't ever forget that. ALL humans have a level of bias. ALL of them.The law doesn't work with the narrative of "incredibly naive". The judges are supposed to argue on the merits of the case. "Being dishonest" in the past doesn't seem to be a merit as you blithely suggest.
Then that is what appeals are for.Judges are human, don't ever forget that. ALL humans have a level of bias. ALL of them.
If you really think that a judge will ignore past transgressions I don't know what to tell you. It may or may not change his verdict but he/she will certainly not ignore it.
Cases without irrefutable evidence, are most often tried on reasonable doubt.
LOL, keep going. Guess what. Those appeals are heard by, wait for it..................HUMANS!!!Then that is what appeals are for.
Enjoy the fantasy, if the past is relevant I'm sure it will attempted to be brought up, if not the attorneys will take action. (think about what you are really saying and the prison system and hard criminals getting paroled)LOL, keep going. Guess what. Those appeals are heard by, wait for it..................HUMANS!!!
Whatever.Enjoy the fantasy, if the past is relevant I'm sure it will attempted to be brought up, if not the attorneys will take action. (think about what you are really saying and the prison system and hard criminals getting paroled)