Apple Sued Over Meltdown and Spectre in U.S. as iPhone Slowdown Lawsuits Now Total 45

[TiggrToo]

Very easy to prove. Throttled iPhone 6 using an A8 does not have '25% more CPU performance' than an A7.

One cannot BS with numbers. Apple should have said something along the lines of 'A8 provides remarkable performance over A7'. Take notes, Apple.

See Bendgate where Judge Kohl ruled that Apple's “mere puffery” (her words, not mine) isn't enough to sue against.
[doublepost=1516149948][/doublepost]

You can't deny harm tho because everyone uses their devices differently.

You almost certainly can't prove it in a court of law either.

"Yes, your honor, my out of warranty phone is slower now than when I brought it new"

 

[aevan]

Very easy to prove. Throttled iPhone 6 using an A8 does not have '25% more CPU performance' than an A7.

One cannot BS with numbers. Apple should have said something along the lines of 'A8 provides remarkable performance over A7'. Take notes, Apple.

Everyone who knows anything about CPUs knows that “X% faster” claims are applicable only in certain scenarios and under certain conditions. When Intel says that the new i7 is 25% faster than the old one, it depends what you’re doing and how you’re measuring it, it does not mean it’s constantly faster. For example, put the new one in a hot environment with a stock cooler and it may throttle and actually be slower after sustained work than the previous one that is cooled better.

Of course, these things are too nuanced for some people here. But they won’t be for the courts, so you can forget about those lawsuits doing anything.

 

[Act3]

See Bendgate where Judge Kohl ruled that Apple's “mere puffery” (her words, not mine) isn't enough to sue against.
[doublepost=1516149948][/doublepost]

You almost certainly can't prove it in a court of law either.

"Yes, your honor, my out of warranty phone is slower now than when I brought it new"

except that apple admitted already to throttling them first rather than suggesting a battery replacement first.
[doublepost=1516150163][/doublepost]

Everyone who knows anything about CPUs knows that “X% faster” claims are applicable only in certain scenarios and under certain conditions. When Intel says that the new i7 is 25% faster than the old one, it depends what you’re doing and how you’re measuring it, it does not mean it’s constantly faster. For example, put the new one in a hot environment with a stock cooler and it may throttle and actually be slower than the previous one.

Of course, these things are too nuanced for some people here. But they won’t be for the courts, so you can forget about those lawsuits doing anything.

apple has admitted throttling phones, regardless of the reason, how much more proof do you need?

 

[TiggrToo]

except that apple admitted already to throttling them first rather than suggesting a battery replacement first.
[doublepost=1516150163][/doublepost]

apple has admitted throttling phones, regardless of the reason, how much more proof do you need?

1. Demonstrate that the the EULA does not give Apple the right to throttle the phones if they so wish, as long as it's done to benefit the consumer.
2. Remember that a large chunk of the devices are out of warranty.
3. Prove that the throttling is worse than total shutdowns.
4. Prove that consumers buy based upon quoted clock speeds and benchmarks (the 'puffery' Judge Kohl referred to).
5. Prove irreparable harm was caused to the user.
6. Prove Apple failed to make good (the $29 battery offer shows an attempt to make whole).
7. Remember that the Bendgate plaintiffs had a lot of a stronger case ('scuse the pun) - now most of their numbers have been decimated as the law suite limps on.
8. Buy a lottery ticket.

 

[deanthedev]

all depends what you consider harm, having a consumer spend money on a device that may need a hardware change in future to fully mitigate may be considered deception since it wasn't disclosed to them even though the manufacture knew of the issue. Sceptre may need a hardware change to fix completely yet here we are with devices still being sold, with no mention to the unknowing person buying it.

You’re presuming a hardware change is required. Undoubtedly future processors will be modified to help deal with these issues, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to deal with it. For now software updates will do, so again I ask, where’s the harm?

 

[Act3]

You’re presuming a hardware change is required. Undoubtedly future processors will be modified to help deal with these issues, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to deal with it. For now software updates will do, so again I ask, where’s the harm?

no I am not, reread my post slowly. what part of the word "may" don't you understand?

 

[deanthedev]

except that apple admitted already to throttling them first rather than suggesting a battery replacement first.

I’ll give you a car analogy that’s actually 100% relevant.

If certain sensors or components on your engine are faulty the engine computer (ECU) can and will reduce power to prevent engine damage.

A worse-case scenario would be a fault in the throttle of a drive-by-wire system. In this case your throttle is literally disabled and the engine will only have a fast idle. Enough to move the car at 5-10MPH (and help you move it off the road).

Apple is doing the exact same thing. In this case the battery is faulty and Apple is reducing processor power to compensate.

The difference between the two is your vehicle will set a Check Engine Light to alert you of a problem. Apple didn’t tell anyone their battery is faulty. This is the only thing Apple has done wrong. There’s no planned obsolescence nor any scheme by Apple to slow devices to try and force them to upgrade. They’re guilty of not communicating properly.

So in the future Apple will most certainly make two changes to iOS. They’ll have a warning show up when you have a faulty battery and they’ll give you an option how to deal with it until such time as you can have it replaced.
[doublepost=1516152342][/doublepost]

no I am not, reread my post slowly. what part of the word "may" don't you understand?

No, I saw that. Explain how you can get a financial settlement for something that “may” happen in the future?

 

[Act3]

I’ll give you a car analogy that’s actually 100% relevant.

If certain sensors or components on your engine are faulty the engine computer (ECU) can and will reduce power to prevent engine damage.

A worse-case scenario would be a fault in the throttle of a drive-by-wire system. In this case your throttle is literally disabled and the engine will only have a fast idle. Enough to move the car at 5-10MPH (and help you move it off the road).

Apple is doing the exact same thing. In this case the battery is faulty and Apple is reducing processor power to compensate.

The difference between the two is your vehicle will set a Check Engine Light to alert you of a problem. Apple didn’t tell anyone their battery is faulty. This is the only thing Apple has done wrong. There’s no planned obsolescence nor any scheme by Apple to slow devices to try and force them to upgrade. They’re guilty of not communicating properly.

So in the future Apple will most certainly make two changes to iOS. They’ll have a warning show up when you have a faulty battery and they’ll give you an option how to deal with it until such time as you can have it replaced.




[doublepost=1516152342][/doublepost]

No, I saw that. Explain how you can get a financial settlement for something that “may” happen in the future?

by willfully continuing to sell something that you know is or have found out is faulty to begin with, without disclosing that to the purchaser

for example, what if the this year's iPhone completely mitigates the sceptre issue, yet you still sell a iPhone X in May for full price fully knowing you have a fix on the way in the fall?

to keep with the car analogies, they aren't selling used cars here

 

[gavroche]

You‘re right. I probably didn‘t clarify enough. My fault. What I meant to say was that you either have to (1) have a contract (any kind, also one that is not formally written, which in Apple‘s case would be some kind of „buyer‘s contract“) with your partner and/or (2) be the damaged party. You can of course sue a dog owner if you get bitten by their dog – because you are damaged by it. However, your aunt cannot sue the dog owner for you. And of course you could technically sue anyone for anything but granted the lawsuits where (1) or (2) don‘t apply will get rejected quite quickly, at least in Europe.

Ah, gotcha... yea, i agree. And i understand the point you were making... that whats stupid about these latest lawsuits is that no-one can have been injured yet. They barely just discovered these flaws... how can anyone possibly assert that they have suffered some sort of a loss as a result of them at this point.
[doublepost=1516161072][/doublepost]

If Apple is found to have been silent about this flaw, knowing it was there, they should indeed be held accountable. Sure, they can further inflate their prices to absorb litigation costs, but if the company develops a reputation for being dishonest and folks find out in retrospect they were sold flawed products, they'll be less inclined to continue buying Apple merchandise. This will affect both sales and price point. If you continue to buy Apple products, knowing of their flaws, then quite possibly you are no longer a "reasonable" person. You are a fan, which is short for "fanatic". This applies not only to Apple, but to any manufacturers less than forthcoming about known flaws in their merchandise.

First of all, the flaw is not Apple's. Its a flaw in a component that is supplied to Apple... and the same flaw that exists in the same components to all other phone manufacturers. You act like Apple was trying to hush up something they personally did wrong.
Second, its absurd to suggest that companies having to build the cost of litigation into the price of their products is somehow dishonest. Its a business. They have to sell product for more than all of the combined costs of designing, building, and selling those products. Legal costs is but one of a great many costs. You'd rather they sell everything at a loss, go out of business, and then have no further support for your existing Apple products, and no future products?
Seriously people, try critical thinking, and think out the logic of some of the arguments that you make. To actually think that a company is being shady because a COMPONENT turns out to have a flaw... that is inherent in its design going back to the 1990s! that they didn't even design. Jesus.

edit: and not to mention, like all other bugs and flaws that have been discovered, a lot of to-do is being made about this, and fixes will be rolled out, and it will be forgotten about... and you most certainly will never had been harmed in any way by this..

 

[deanthedev]

by willfully continuing to sell something that you know is or have found out is faulty to begin with, without disclosing that to the purchaser

for example, what if the this year's iPhone completely mitigates the sceptre issue, yet you still sell a iPhone X in May for full price fully knowing you have a fix on the way in the fall?

to keep with the car analogies, they aren't selling used cars here

Except the products aren't faulty. Try again.

 

[filterdecay]

1. Demonstrate that the the EULA does not give Apple the right to throttle the phones if they so wish, as long as it's done to benefit the consumer.
2. Remember that a large chunk of the devices are out of warranty.
3. Prove that the throttling is worse than total shutdowns.
4. Prove that consumers buy based upon quoted clock speeds and benchmarks (the 'puffery' Judge Kohl referred to).
5. Prove irreparable harm was caused to the user.
6. Prove Apple failed to make good (the $29 battery offer shows an attempt to make whole).
7. Remember that the Bendgate plaintiffs had a lot of a stronger case ('scuse the pun) - now most of their numbers have been decimated as the law suite limps on.
8. Buy a lottery ticket.

I think we hired lawyers to prove all that stuff.

 

[aevan]

except that apple admitted already to throttling them first rather than suggesting a battery replacement first.
[doublepost=1516150163][/doublepost]

apple has admitted throttling phones, regardless of the reason, how much more proof do you need?

Throttling itself is not lawsuit material by itself. Every CPU throttles under certain conditions. The poster claimed that Apple was misleading customers - which is enough to get penalized by the court. However, his "proof" of this misleading is that they claimed how, say, A8 is 25% faster than A7. And I said that anyone who understands how CPUs work knows that won't stand in court. No CPU has constant speed under all circumstances. If Apple is guilty of misleading customers, then so is Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm, etc.

For example - did you know that every CPU in Android throttles? Their advertised speeds are peak speeds, and they can't keep it up for long. In fact, only Apple's A-series CPUs can provide sustained performance that is advertised (of course, if the battery can keep up). However, run a demanding process for a certain amount of time and most, if not all Android phones will throttle. Is that misleading customers? No Android manufacturer ever says that. You know, "our phone is 50% faster but only for, like, 15 minutes!"

Look, guys, I understand that you're angry at Apple and all, but these lawsuits are not going to do anything, like it or not. You may hate some of Apple's decisions or hate Apple, but they are - most likely - not breaking any laws. In the end, that will be up to the courts to decide, but don't get your hopes up
[doublepost=1516179619][/doublepost]

by willfully continuing to sell something that you know is or have found out is faulty to begin with, without disclosing that to the purchaser

for example, what if the this year's iPhone completely mitigates the sceptre issue, yet you still sell a iPhone X in May for full price fully knowing you have a fix on the way in the fall?

That's really streching it. Yes, of course they can sell it. The CPUs are not faulty or falsly advertised. Someone found a way to exploit the architecture, but if that was a cause to stop selling the devices, that would mean that every time someone finds an exploit of any technology, that technology needs to be recalled. That's insane. Apple applied a software fix, future CPUs will probably handle this whole multitasking caching thing differently and I'm sure someone will find new exploits and the circle continues.

BTW, if you only knew what kind of bugs Intel and AMD have been shipping and selling CPUs with for years....

Don't agree? Well, let's wait for the courts to decide. If they say Apple is not guilty of misleading customers - are you going to accept that you were wrong? If courts say Apple is guilty, I will certainly agree that I was wrong. I just seriously doubt it will happen.

 

[TiggrToo]

I think we hired lawyers to prove all that stuff.

You don't get it, do you? Look at the Bendgate class action lawsuits - the precedent set there by Judge Kohl is why I posted the list. She all but threw out that class action lawsuits because of many of the points I listed. The other bits (e.g. EULA limited liability) have also found to be legally sound on prior case law.

Amazed that people today still think lawyers are some sort of legal crusader out to protect the little guy and only fire off law suits if they believe deep down in their soul that they have a hell of a chance of winning, when the total inveserse invariably holds true.

 

[EdT]

Amazed that people today still think lawyers are some sort of legal crusader out to protect the little guy and only fire off law suits if they believe deep down in their soul that they have a hell of a chance of winning, when the total inveserse invariably holds true.

I’ve watched hundreds if not thousands of hours of lawyer TV shows and they always put rights and decency before profits, well, except for the deformed sniveling opponent lawyer who beats his wife and steals candy from children, so I know that lawyers, or good people in general, NEVER put profits before people. TV shows never lie.

 

[brentsg]

No, you are asking them to be forthcoming in the products they are selling, and to let folks know that steps are being taken to fix or at least ameliorate the problems. If, indeed, essentially "everyone else" has similar problems, then that should accelerate R&D efforts to improve future chip technology. There is nothing to be gained except short term sales advantage in hiding flaws of this nature; what is being lost is a trustworthy reputation. That's more of a longterm gain. If Apple knew of this 6 or more months ago, they made the deliberate choice to keep this from customers in order to maintain short term sales and prices.

Or they weren't forthcoming because it's not cool to disclose huge security vulnerabilities before fixes are in place.

 

[harvester32]

What law is it against to purposely slow down the hardware?

In this case, it's a civil lawsuit where the plaintiffs are indicating breach of contract, breach of material fact, deceptive business practices, and/or breach of conditions subsequent to purchase. I'm assuming that with Tim Cook's recent apology tour they know they are in the wrong (and now, so does every jury pool and judge) and are just trying to mitigate the damages pending a summary settlement. It speaks volumes that the CEO of the worlds largest company is out saying they were wrong. It tells me that their General Counsel has advised him that there is no winner in this situation and that all the lawyers in the company can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. There is no way this goes to trial or if it does, it will be litigated quickly; Apple wants this to go away! Fortunately for them, any bad press they get is better than exploding batteries and being banned from all commercial airliners!

Personally, I think if they didn't have the bad press to deal with, going to trial would be better. In the trial they could show that:

A. In the US, when your flashlight dies, you have to replace the battery.
B. When you're battery dies in your car, hearing aid, electric toothbrush, etc...YOU the owner have to replace it (to KEEP the performance up)
C. Apple would have been more in the wrong NOT to have throttled your phone so that if it died while you were kidnapped and in the trunk of a car the damages would have been astronomical.
D. They care enough to offer new features to older phones, providing these services with respectable results even on older hardware and when they can't, they don't allow the upgrade. That shows they work towards improving products after the sale and that any breach of conditions claim would be unfounded.

 

[clystron]

Everyone who knows anything about CPUs knows that “X% faster” claims are applicable only in certain scenarios and under certain conditions. When Intel says that the new i7 is 25% faster than the old one, it depends what you’re doing and how you’re measuring it, it does not mean it’s constantly faster.

Thats exactly why there is usually some small-print information about the use cases or a simple "up to" in front of the "faster"-statement.

I just checked the austrian iPhone X website and it specifically says "up to 70% faster efficiency cores" and "up to 25% faster performance cores".

 

[Moorepheus]

In this case, it's a civil lawsuit where the plaintiffs are indicating breach of contract, breach of material fact, deceptive business practices, and/or breach of conditions subsequent to purchase. I'm assuming that with Tim Cook's recent apology tour they know they are in the wrong (and now, so does every jury pool and judge) and are just trying to mitigate the damages pending a summary settlement. It speaks volumes that the CEO of the worlds largest company is out saying they were wrong. It tells me that their General Counsel has advised him that there is no winner in this situation and that all the lawyers in the company can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. There is no way this goes to trial or if it does, it will be litigated quickly; Apple wants this to go away! Fortunately for them, any bad press they get is better than exploding batteries and being banned from all commercial airliners!

Personally, I think if they didn't have the bad press to deal with, going to trial would be better. In the trial they could show that:

A. In the US, when your flashlight dies, you have to replace the battery.
B. When you're battery dies in your car, hearing aid, electric toothbrush, etc...YOU the owner have to replace it (to KEEP the performance up)
C. Apple would have been more in the wrong NOT to have throttled your phone so that if it died while you were kidnapped and in the trunk of a car the damages would have been astronomical.
D. They care enough to offer new features to older phones, providing these services with respectable results even on older hardware and when they can't, they don't allow the upgrade. That shows they work towards improving products after the sale and that any breach of conditions claim would be unfounded.

All the items you listed are totally different items an iPhone, but if you want to compare, here you go

A. In the US, if your flashlight dies because of dead batteries, you can replace them yourself, WITHOUT voiding any warranty (if there is one) and with out scheduling an appointment with your nearest Apple store and then wait for the said battery to be replaced (which will take HOURS).

B. In the US, if your battery dies in your car, hearing aid, electronic toothbrush, etc, you can replace those batteries yourself, WITHOUT voiding any warranty (if there is one) and with out scheduling an appointment with your nearest Apple store and then wait for said battery to be replaced (which will take hours).

C. Apple would not have been in the wrong, if they had just TOLD PEOPLE that their battery is bad and it needs to be replaced. From my own experience and from what I have read from others, they never, I repeat, NEVER gave this as an option.

D. Apple only cared enough to add a feature that for many, seemed to slow down their older phones because of a hardware failure, WITH OUT telling anyone... UNTIL THEY WERE CAUGHT, but this was Apple doing its customers a SOLID....Yea, I get it.

TC is out apologizing around the US this very minute. Please, they know they were wrong, and now it is about minimizing the fallout.
[doublepost=1516304814][/doublepost]

Thats exactly why there is usually some small-print information about the use cases or a simple "up to" in front of the "faster"-statement.

I just checked the austrian iPhone X website and it specifically says "up to 70% faster efficiency cores" and "up to 25% faster performance cores".

Ok, I agree, but let's say you use the same process to benchmark your speeds on an iPhone 7. The using that process on an 8 and X, you looks at those speeds. And for argument sake, lets say you get your 70% performance increase. However, now, a year later, you noticed that your 8 or X is now only getting 40% better performance from your benchmarks. Yes, while you are right (40% is in the "UP TO 70%..."), but something is wrong, something has changed. For almost a year, the 8 or X was getting 70% performance increase, but now only 40%.....is it broken? Is it the software? Is it something that Apple added to the software, without telling anyone, that slowing the phone down to prolong or prevent a hardware failure that shuts down the phone? To me, something just doesn't seem right, but that's me.

 

[mike9449]

Yeah, we'll see where this goes. Hope all of these lawsuits are thrown out of court.

Nobody really wants to go to court, they just make a stink to get a settlement. It's more like a protection racket from the '20s.

 

[clystron]

Ok, I agree, but let's say you use the same process to benchmark your speeds on an iPhone 7. The using that process on an 8 and X, you looks at those speeds. And for argument sake, lets say you get your 70% performance increase. However, now, a year later, you noticed that your 8 or X is now only getting 40% better performance from your benchmarks. Yes, while you are right (40% is in the "UP TO 70%..."), but something is wrong, something has changed. For almost a year, the 8 or X was getting 70% performance increase, but now only 40%.....is it broken? Is it the software? Is it something that Apple added to the software, without telling anyone, that slowing the phone down to prolong or prevent a hardware failure that shuts down the phone? To me, something just doesn't seem right, but that's me.

I see your point and I agree in general. One just can not take any marketing "faster"-numbers as facts and demand that they must always be met, especially if the software has been updated since the device came out. Because there are no hard official specs (AFAIK) it is probably very very hard to prove that an iPhone no longer meets them...

If it really is the hardware that slows down (power management), how fast does the CPU have to be to still be within spec?

If the device got generally slower because of software changes, how much of a real world slow-down is acceptable?


Both questions can be argued about to infinity

 

[PastaPrimav]

Apple is the one touting speeds. Of course we are entitled to what is advertised and claimed after we spent our money on it. There is no mention of throttling as a feature in that press release.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2015/09/09Apple-Introduces-iPhone-6s-iPhone-6s-Plus/

"A9, Apple’s third-generation 64-bit chip powers these innovations with 70 percent faster CPU and 90 percent faster GPU performance than the A8, all with gains in energy efficiency for great battery life."

Where is the specific clock speed? Where is the guaranteed clock speed?

Do you not expect intelligent CPU + power management? You're all wrong, and every lawsuit will fail if Tim Cook doesn't keep saying things that hurt the company.

 

[Act3]

Where is the specific clock speed? Where is the guaranteed clock speed?

Do you not expect intelligent CPU + power management? You're all wrong, and every lawsuit will fail if Tim Cook doesn't keep saying things that hurt the company.

I sure do, but shouldn't that be taken into account during chip/device design from the start rather than add it a year after ? Adding it a year later, smells fishy to me. Somewhere, along the line, someone messed up.

 

[I7guy]

Where is the specific clock speed? Where is the guaranteed clock speed?

Do you not expect intelligent CPU + power management? You're all wrong, and every lawsuit will fail if Tim Cook doesn't keep saying things that hurt the company.

What has Tim said that hurt the company?

 

[PastaPrimav]

I sure do, but shouldn't that be taken into account during chip/device design from the start rather than add it a year after ? Adding it a year later, smells fishy to me. Somewhere, along the line, someone messed up.

No that's just amateur sensationalist nonsense.

 

[Applenomore]

It's time they reimburse those who purchased batteries and/or new iphones after they started to throttle without notification. Let's move on with it and let Apple prove themselves once more.