Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Shells Out $3.4 Million to Chileans to Settle Planned Obsolescence Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. You didn't even read the Barron's article. For this particular $3.4million settlement, it's not that they didn't tell the customers. It's the fact that they forcefully "programmed a limited lifespan" into the product which I disagree with.
My stance is that Apple didn't program "a limited lifespan". It was actually done for the opposite effect. The throttling was done to extend the life of the usability of the phone (a phone that runs slower is infinitely more reliable than a phone that randomly shuts down due to old batteries).
The problem you're talking about was regarding a different settlement in France.
Talk about misleading...
No, it's not a subpar battery. It's the physics of lithium ion. ALL batteries will eventually cause random shutdowns because Apple A-chips since iPhone 6S requires higher voltages at peak power usages and aging batteries can't provide that performance.
All electric vehicles running on lithium ion will run into the same problem. Maybe not in 2 years, but eventually it will.
Or their risk management put a dollar amount on the cost of winning vs losing this lawsuit and found a settlement to be the cheapest option. They likely factored in potential loss of customers, lawyer fees (obviously), and available lawyers to handle the tens to hundreds of lawsuits on their plate. Is it worth hiring another firm to handle this small $3.4 million lawsuit? Not to Apple.
Companies sometimes settle nuisance suits, for various reasons.
My own opinion is with Apple selling the massive volume of phones, they just jump into fixing hardware. They have to assess the issue and figure out a game plan. And then they probably weight the cost of waiting to understand the scope of the issue, with any litigation that may follow.
So to some it could seem like planned obsolescence but I do not believe that is how Apple thinks as a corporation.
For the 1000th time we revisit this issue and the same nonsense. It’s not throttling it’s battery management. Every modern piece of hardware does it. But Apple did it and everyone freaks out. But the alternatives were worse - shutting the whole device down. But this electrical engineering is too complicated for users and too complicated for judges. All lawyers see is free money.
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.
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.
This is annoying because it distracts from the actual issue. Every year apple releases an iOS update that runs slower on your existing device. You don’t have to update to it, but apple is ruthless in nagging you to do it and you can easily be tricked into agreeing to an overnight update without realizing it.
By the time you get to the last version of iOS they’ll make available to your device, things have gotten so clunky you will naturally equate this to the device being older, as if it were made of moving parts that have worn down through usage over time, and accept that it’s time to buy a new device.
When in reality if they didn’t nag you every year to update and you stopped after maybe a couple of updates you’d have a device that runs smoothly and nimbly for many more years to come.
That to me is the real crime, and no one talks about it because of this totally misunderstood throttling situation that I actually believe apple had good intentions with.
By the time you get to the last version of iOS they’ll make available to your device, things have gotten so clunky you will naturally equate this to the device being older, as if it were made of moving parts that have worn down through usage over time, and accept that it’s time to buy a new device.
When in reality if they didn’t nag you every year to update and you stopped after maybe a couple of updates you’d have a device that runs smoothly and nimbly for many more years to come.
That to me is the real crime, and no one talks about it because of this totally misunderstood throttling situation that I actually believe apple had good intentions with.
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.
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?
I could argue that Apple shouldn’t turn a blind eye to women rights and therefore not do business in the US where gender inequality continues to persist. But how would that advance anything?
Are Flash Alerts turned on in Accessibility > Audio Visual ?
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.
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?
it would definitely make for a far more powerful signal.
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.
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.
That’s not planned obsolescence. That’s planned mitigation of inherent obsolescence.
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.
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 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.
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!!!
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)
Whatever.
We both know jurors and judges alike get swayed and bought.
Not sure what utopia you live in but the real world consists of a lot of people with biases, agendas and weaknesses across ALL walks of life.