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:
The tech media STILL can't report on this issue correctly.

Throttling was not just for end-of-life batteries. It was also for new batteries that were operating below 20% charge or were operating in cold temperatures. All three of those scenarios could result in voltage demands that the battery couldn't supply which could potentially do permanent damage to the phone hardware.

This was always one of the stupidest lawsuits from a consumer perspective. Without throttling, the phone would simply shut off in either of those three scenarios. All the throttling did was allow the user to continue what they were doing albeit in a slower speed.
Click to expand...

They slipped it in, with no notice to anyone that they were doing it, in a way that made phones look like they were failing and needed to be replaced.

It bit me. I almost didn't replace the battery in my phone at the time, decided to go ahead and change it anyway, and the phone immediately speeded up. Apple's scam was made public a few weeks later.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: freedomlinux, Wizec, Tim Apple’s Glasses and 9 others
JosephAW said:
I'm already on my third battery on my iPhone 6 :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with anything? Batterygate was supposedly about Apple throttling phone batteries to try and make people think they needed a new phone. The reality is that the throttling only happened when the voltage demand of the system was too high for the battery to supply. That could only happen in three situations: battery was below 80% capacity, battery was below 20% charge, or battery was operating in cold temperatures. In other words, throttling only occurred due to the limitations of lithium ion battery technology.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Apple’s Glasses, Shirasaki, JosephAW and 2 others
Victor Mortimer said:
They slipped it in, with no notice to anyone that they were doing it, in a way that made phones look like they were failing and needed to be replaced.

It bit me. I almost didn't replace the battery in my phone at the time, decided to go ahead and change it anyway, and the phone immediately speeded up. Apple's scam was made public a few weeks later.
Click to expand...
Throttling only occurred when voltage demand was too high for the system to handle. And that only happened relative to the limitations of phone-sized lithium ion batteries. Every battery in every phone sold had those same limitations, i.e., voltage supply could be unstable if the battery was below 80% capacity, operating below 20% charge or operating in cold weather.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Tim Apple’s Glasses, Shirasaki, Tagbert and 2 others
Trying to search my email inbox, who is the sender? I can't remember if I did it or not.
 
CWallace said:
One of the times Apple's penchant for secrecy bit them on the bum. It would likely have been seen as positive PR if they had been upfront as to why they were doing it - "rather than have your phone suddenly shut down, we're going to limit how much power it can draw for a short period of time".
Click to expand...
It's not "secrecy" to not be transparent about internal discussions about battery/efficiency engineering decisions.
 
  • Like
  • Angry
  • Disagree
Reactions: freedomlinux, amartinez1660, Shirasaki and 3 others
gnipgnop said:
No, the sad part is that Apple had to pay people for an issue that has 100% to do with the limitations of lithium ion battery technology and 0% to do with Apple.
Click to expand...
And that had no real world problems and was discovered by YouTubers using specialized tools. Literally every user thinks there phones are not as fast or having issues, but in the real world this didnt impact anyone.
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux, Shirasaki, Tagbert and 1 other person
I got the $29 battery replacement in 2018. Does that mean I won't get a settlement payment? 🤔
 
nnc said:
I got the $29 battery replacement in 2018. Does that mean I won't get a settlement payment? 🤔
Click to expand...
That doesn't disqualify you. But you had to file a claim for the settlement before its deadline in order to receive a settlement payment. If you didn't do that, you won't be receiving a settlement payment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supergt
gnipgnop said:
The tech media STILL can't report on this issue correctly.

Throttling was not just for end-of-life batteries. It was also for new batteries that were operating below 20% charge or were operating in cold temperatures. All three of those scenarios could result in voltage demands that the battery couldn't supply which could potentially do permanent damage to the phone hardware.

This was always one of the stupidest lawsuits from a consumer perspective. Without throttling, the phone would simply shut off in either of those three scenarios. All the throttling did was allow the user to continue what they were doing albeit in a slower speed.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you, and several other people, refuse to see the reasons for this. It's not what Apple did, it's that they didn't tell anyone they did it., and there was no way for the end-user to know what was happening.

If they were upfront and said "we're enabling this, and here is how you know if it affects you", there would have been no lawsuit, no case, and no payouts..

Transparency would have solved this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: petero01, freedomlinux, AndyMacAndMic and 7 others
I received my two payments this morning. Looking forward to the MacBook Pro keyboard replacement settlement as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigkool2inSC
Timo_Existencia said:
So, if they had placed some tiny verbiage in the Terms of Service for the OS update, that nobody would have read?
Click to expand...

No, they should have put in the settings, with an easy to view status, from Day 1. If it was enabled, there should have a red exclamation same as low icloud space until acknowledged. It should have been blatant but even Terms of Service would have been better than what they did.

They didn't let anyone know, at all, and one had ZERO way to learn if it was enabled or not, or that this software/speed change even existed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Shirasaki, RuralJuror and arkitect
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