Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Starts Sending 'Batterygate' Settlement Payments to iPhone Users

gnipgnop said:
Regardless of what an individual employee told your brother, Apple did provide battery replacement at that time. That’s why they dropped the price down to $29 when the tech media hyped the throttling angle. People also complained that Apple wouldn’t replace their battery if it was above 80% capacity due to supply constraints.
Click to expand...

Yes they corrected the situation after the fact, but at first, an end-user had no way to know that their battery was below 80% health and needed to be replaced, other than symptoms.

That is the problem. Again, no communication; customers left in the dark and thinking that they needed a new phone because Apple couldn't be bothered to let the end-user see a health number, and couldn't be bothered to tell them that their device might slow down due to battery age.

Now they are paying for it, and rightfully so.
 
Sorinut said:
Yes they corrected the situation after the fact, but at first, an end-user had no way to know that their battery was below 80% health and needed to be replaced, other than symptoms.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Apple could tell customers if their battery was at EOL for capacity. That's why the Genius Bar employee could tell your brother that the battery was old/worn out.
 
gnipgnop said:
Incorrect. Apple could tell customers if their battery was at EOL for capacity. That's why the Genius Bar employee could tell your brother that the battery was old/worn out.
Click to expand...

So one had to go the store to check this. Convenient for people who don't live close to an Apple Store, or just went to the cell provider for help, which a lot of people did at the time, and still do. My parents/brother lived two hours away from the nearest Apple store.

Again, why did they hide this info from the end user? To me, it looks like to enhance the upsale opportunities.

The biggest take away from this is that Apple settled fast, and Tim Cook apologized because they knew what they did, they didn't want discovery, and they knew they would lose in court.. That or they knew, at least, how bad this looked, especially since the prevailing rumor was that Apple was intentionally slowing phones to increase sales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorinut said:
So one had to go the store to check this. Convenient for people who don't live close to an Apple Store, or just went to the cell provider for help, which a lot of people did at the time, and still do. My parents/brother lived two hours away from the nearest Apple store.

Again, why did they hide this info from the end user? To me, it looks like to enhance the upsale opportunities.

The biggest take away from this is that Apple settled fast, and Tim Cook apologized because they knew what they did, they didn't want discovery, or at least they knew this looked really bad.
Click to expand...
That's the way it works for all kinds of consumer products. Vehicles: most people need to take them to the dealership or a mechanic to get answers to performance problems. Or the dealership/mechanic might point out problems that you weren't even aware of when you take it in for routine maintenance.
 
gnipgnop said:
That's the way it works for all kinds of consumer products. Vehicles: most people need to take them to the dealership or a mechanic to get answers to performance problems. Or the dealership/mechanic might point out problems that you weren't even aware of when you take it in for routine maintenance.
Click to expand...

I was a mechanic during undergrad. Check engine light, car doesn't start or slow starts, fuel light, oil light, battery/charging light, low tire indicators. There is a notification 99% of the time when there is a problem. Routine maintenance is in the manual based on milage, which you can easily see from the dash.

iPhone? Nothing. Absolutely no way for an end-user to know there is a problem themselves, even if they were aware of the how an iPhone and its battery chemistry worked.

Sorry, I don't buy. I don't think Apple wanted the end user to know. If that isn't the case, then they have ethically bankrupt or dumb people at the helm.

Apple got called out, it looked bad; they apologized, settled, and changed their ways. I give them credit for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: henkie and Altis
gnipgnop said:
Throttling only occurred in the situations below that could have shut the phone off.

A. Operating the phone with a battery that is below 80% capacity (i.e., the battery is at end of life).

B. Operating the phone with a charge that is below 20% (happens with any battery age/capacity).

C. Operating the phone in cold temperatures (happens with any battery age/capacity).

Apple didn't remove "horsepower". Apple removed the shut downs that would have occurred from a system voltage demand that was too high for the battery to provide. It was all related to the normal limitations of lithium-ion batteries. All three of those ABCs would occur with any smartphone regardless of brand.
Click to expand...

gnipgnop said:
The only way for an iPhone user to experience regular and noticeable throttling was to have a battery that was EOL (end of life) at 80% capacity or lower. Those batteries were no longer capable of providing a consistent flow of voltage above 20% charge. Those customers DID need a new battery OR a new phone.

Proof of that is the French regulatory findings that I already posted about. It was “especially” iPhones with old batteries that were affected. That is entirely in line with what Apple said they were doing.
Click to expand...
That is not even remotely true about what happened, so why do you keep repeating it?

iPhones were found to be throttling all the way down to 40% of CPU speed, at discrete speeds, when the battery was between 80-90% health. The very fact that they used specific throttling speeds was how it became so obvious to those who found it that it was deliberate.

This means that the batteries, which were often under a year old and under warranty, would pass all health checks with flying colours. In fact, the "Genius" techs would tell you that Apple would not replace those batteries even to a paying customer because there was nothing wrong with the battery.

On top of that, the throttling masked the real evidence of the battery issues, which is of course why Apple did it. If your phone was shutting down due to undervoltage, you'd obviously need a new battery and be good to go. But if your phone is just incredibly slow after a major software update -- well that's simply because you need a new phone, isn't it? ;) At least that's what they were telling everyone since it appears even the "Genius" techs had no idea the throttling was taking place to mask a major battery issue.
 
gnipgnop said:
Incorrect. Apple could tell customers if their battery was at EOL for capacity. That's why the Genius Bar employee could tell your brother that the battery was old/worn out.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of people who were told by Genius Bar their phone was slow and ended up buying a new phone. Apple is wrong here. That is why they paid $500M.
 
gnipgnop said:
The reality is that if your iPhone battery is at 80% capacity or lower then an Apple Store employee suggesting a new phone is not unethical. That is one way of doing it.
Click to expand...
That’s crazy and definitely unethical. If a customer is given all the information, pay for a new battery ($70) and have phone performance restored or spend $600-$700 for a new phone, the vast majority will choose the battery.
 
  • Like
Reactions: henkie
Riot Nrrrd said:
I went back and looked at the original e-mail I got about this settlement. It read, in part,

I figured it would probably be even less than that, so I ignored it and never filed a claim.

So, all you $92.17 winners, you're welcome ;)
Click to expand...

So all yall getting $92.17… WTH? lol! Why did I get a single payout of $46.08 (exactly half)?? I don’t recall filing a claim for half a phone…. 😝
 
gnipgnop said:
The reality is that if your iPhone battery is at 80% capacity or lower then an Apple Store employee suggesting a new phone is not unethical. That is one way of doing it.
Click to expand...
… If a mechanic tells you to replace your car when it won’t start every time, while it only needs its battery to be replaced? This is not unethical?
 
This reminds me of Steve Martin in the movie The Jerk where he loses against a class action lawsuit and is required to send all his former customers a check for $1.09.

 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: pakupakuman and Supermike
gnipgnop said:
The only way for an iPhone user to experience regular and noticeable throttling was to have a battery that was EOL (end of life) at 80% capacity or lower. Those batteries were no longer capable of providing a consistent flow of voltage above 20% charge. Those customers DID need a new battery OR a new phone.

Proof of that is the French regulatory findings that I already posted about. It was “especially” iPhones with old batteries that were affected. That is entirely in line with what Apple said they were doing.
Click to expand...
The customer would never need a new phone if a battery replacement would fix the problem. Unfortunately Apple tried to pull a fast one and got caught. People were being told to upgrade and you yourself said it’s not unethical. You also like to quote some French lawsuit but that is irrelevant here. We are discussing the US lawsuit. You just seem to be an Apple apologist. It was right Apple paid up and I’m glad I got paid 3x for iPhones I owned. Too bad everyone who qualified didn’t enter the lawsuit, however, in the end that meant more money for those of us that did.
 
henkie said:
Two multimillion settlements and a 25 million dollar fine from the French. But they did nothing wrong. Lol. Next time I receive a speeding ticket I will tell my wife I did nothing wrong. She will not be that naive. Question: replace “Apple” in all of this by “Samsung”, would you defend Samsung?
Click to expand...
Their mistake was bad PR, but by preventing the phones from crashing with older batteries was good. How this compares to a speeding ticket is beyond my understanding.
 
What do you guys search in your emails to know if you submitted a claim? I had a 6 plus and 6s plus but don’t remember if I submitted a claim for the battery gate issue.
 
iBluetooth said:
Their mistake was bad PR, but by preventing the phones from crashing with older batteries was good. How this compares to a speeding ticket is beyond my understanding.
Click to expand...
Without letting the user know (no way to know battery health), so the user thought he/she needed to upgrade the phone, while a battery replacement would have sufficed. And last time I checked, you get a fine when you are found doing something against the rules, so not only bad PR.

But this topic keeps going in circles with some people vehemently defending Apple. Would the same people defend Samsung if it would do exactly the same? I highly doubt it…
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeylikesit
henkie said:
Without letting the user know (no way to know battery health), so the user thought he/she needed to upgrade the phone, while a battery replacement would have sufficed. And last time I checked, you get a fine when you are found doing something against the rules, so not only bad PR.

But this topic keeps going in circles with some people vehemently defending Apple. Would the same people defend Samsung if it would do exactly the same? I highly doubt it…
Click to expand...
The case was settled, so there was no conclusion. Companies are often better off, settling instead of continuing litigation, especially it is a PR nightmare like this.
This has nothing to do with Samsung, but if you think that is a "do good" company. Samsung programmed their phones to detect when a benchmark app was running and then increased the CPU speeds, just for those apps. This is not a mistake, but done deliberately, and they are still doing this today: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/geekbench-bans-galaxy-s22-cheating-123138295.html
 
iBluetooth said:
The case was settled, so there was no conclusion. Companies are often better off, settling instead of continuing litigation, especially it is a PR nightmare like this.
This has nothing to do with Samsung, but if you think that is a "do good" company. Samsung programmed their phones to detect when a benchmark app was running and then increased the CPU speeds, just for those apps. This is not a mistake, but done deliberately, and they are still doing this today: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/geekbench-bans-galaxy-s22-cheating-123138295.html
Click to expand...
There was also a fine from the French. You usually do not get a fine if you play according to the rules, correct? And no, I do not think Samsung is a “do good company”. Certainly not, they have also done some pricing stuff with TVs I think. What I meant is: if exactly the same battery gate case would happen to Samsung, would you defend Samsung? Probably not. And that means you are not defending the case itself, you are defending Apple. That is pretty hypocritical, right?

E.g. in case of the benchmarks, a Samsung apologist (to give a reverse example) would say: “Nothing wrong with optimizing CPU speeds based on the app at hand. It is just optimizing performance based on app detection. And what is more: they have not been found guilty in court nor did Samsung have to settle. So nothing wrong with it.” You see what I mean?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BugeyeSTI
mikeylikesit said:
Getting the cheap battery replacement didn’t prevent you for submitting a claim. I also received a $29 battery replacement in addition to $276 for three claims.
Click to expand...
Of course, but I felt the battery replacement discount was a fair replacement for the settlement.

I also don’t think my wife still had her iPhone 6 in 2020, so if I needed to pull a serial number or something I would have been SOL.
 
Just got the check for $92.17 from Apple settlement payment in the mail today. I didn’t even remember I made the claim. What a surprise! 😊
 
I haven’t gotten anything either. Other than the Maldonado settlement? Is that was this is for??? I think Maldonado was for battery gate??? I got $26.18 for that. I know I submitted my claim for this one too but I haven’t got any notice of a $92.17 payment .
 
Totally forgot about this, just received the check today. Nice surprise!
Heck, I was expecting maybe 9-10 bucks at the most, not $92. :)

NOW...I wait for my Facebook check...which I am sure won't be that much
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back