Yes and no. Apple does have the ability to change designs. However, if said changes come too late in the developments/deployment phases, then does changes will make it until the next architecture iteration.
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 Sued Over Meltdown and Spectre in U.S. as iPhone Slowdown Lawsuits Now Total 45
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes and no. Apple does have the ability to change designs. However, if said changes come too late in the developments/deployment phases, then does changes will make it until the next architecture iteration.
It might in a year or so, after iphone 7/8 batteries are aged, and iOS 12+ starts pushing those phones a little harder. That’s where iPhone 6/6s owners are now.
You do understand it was done to protect your data right? A sudden uncontrolled shutdown due to a spike in power draw could and has, mine son for example, wipe out photos, notes etc or corrupt the entire phone requiring you to run a DFU which in turn requires a complete wipe of the phone. You wouldn't sue Ford because your 3 year old battery in your f150 left you stranded would you?
While I don't like the idea of suing Apple regarding the Meltdown/Spectre problem, I urge everybody that keeps asking in this thread if Apple should have released prior information thus helping the bad people before a patch was ready, to remember that High Sierra ONLY has got the Meltdown software mitigation patch. Sierra and previous releases did not.
If you look at the edited document regarding Security Update 2017-002 you will find that Meltdown is fixed in High Sierra only. The Safari patch contains a mitigation for one vector of Spectre. (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208331 - scroll down till "An application may be able to read kernel memory (Meltdown)").
My point is that although I didn't expect Apple to stop selling computers while knowing about the CPU flaw, I would have expected the patch for Sierra and El Capitan, too. Which, as we speak, it's yet nowhere to be announced, nor released. And we shouldn't forget that statistics posted in these forums about Mac OS deployments show that High Sierra is slightly less than 50% as of December 2017. Don't ask me for a link, go search one.
Useless to say, my Linux systems and - omg - my Windows 7 and 2008r2 VMs have already received patches, too. My Sierra systems patiently wait. Publishing a first draft of the 2017-002 (which has been re-published almost anywhere on the net with, as of today, inaccurate informations) then editing it to remove Meltdown mitigations references for both 10.12 and 10.11 reached a new height in the IT security field, at least communication wise.
If you look at the edited document regarding Security Update 2017-002 you will find that Meltdown is fixed in High Sierra only. The Safari patch contains a mitigation for one vector of Spectre. (https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208331 - scroll down till "An application may be able to read kernel memory (Meltdown)").
My point is that although I didn't expect Apple to stop selling computers while knowing about the CPU flaw, I would have expected the patch for Sierra and El Capitan, too. Which, as we speak, it's yet nowhere to be announced, nor released. And we shouldn't forget that statistics posted in these forums about Mac OS deployments show that High Sierra is slightly less than 50% as of December 2017. Don't ask me for a link, go search one.
Useless to say, my Linux systems and - omg - my Windows 7 and 2008r2 VMs have already received patches, too. My Sierra systems patiently wait. Publishing a first draft of the 2017-002 (which has been re-published almost anywhere on the net with, as of today, inaccurate informations) then editing it to remove Meltdown mitigations references for both 10.12 and 10.11 reached a new height in the IT security field, at least communication wise.
Then you shouldn't. Look, I am not going to argue if it's good or bad to have sensitive information on a mobile device. After all it's just convinient to do so. Hence, convinience can be dangerous. When I meant they are not used, I didn't mean us users, but serious bankers. These people have very tight and redundant security. Us common folk? We have TouchID, FaceID and passcodes.
However, convinience sometimes carries and inherent risk. Spectre and Meltdown are good examples of those risk. Is Apple at fault? Yes and no. I have stated this several times. So I'll just kindly ask you to go look at my other posts on how this conclusion came to be.
I respectfully disagree.
Those ARM CPUs are not only in iPhones.
There are countless politicians, lawyers, bankers etc. in the US and the rest of the world who are using an iPad pro as their daily computer instead of a laptop. Remember Apple saying that the iPad Pro can replace a laptop?
Can you guarantee that Apple's ARM CPUs are not used for sensitive information? Don't think so.
Last edited:
Would you be upset if your F150 horsepower got halved when your battery was 1 year old, and the dealership said they won’t change your battery because the battery passes their tests, and then just recommend that you buy a new truck if more horsepower is what you’re after? Oh, and assume that you’d have to drop your engine to get to the battery.
So I guess everyone who used Intel chips is at fault then. They designed computers with buggy Intel chips
Most activity will show relatively zero effect of a slowdown. Now, at work it's a totally different story and I've very real concerns as to the ongoing of our BI platforms since they're the ones who'll receive the worst hit out of everyone.
Phones - really, let's be honest now, how is anyone going to prove their smartphone is '5% slower'?
Despite feelings to the contrary, the US Courts along with most others, rule on point of law. What this will come down to did
a) Apple knowingly sell devices with a defect that they chose to leave unfixed?
b) Have Apple acted outside of good faith in firmware changes on peoples devices?
As for a) - that's a hard sell - and much of that will come down to Intel. What we're talking about is a failure at the lowest possible level - basic chip architecture and one that was only ascertained relatively recently.
And as for b) We all of us agreed to Apple making changes when we agreed to the EULA.
What will be more meaningful, even if a) is proven, is 'what affect did this have on owners' when it comes to ascertaining damages - and for that Apple (and others) could point to sales of affected devices pre and post Meltdown and Spectre notifications. If sales dropped significantly, then that would help prove that yes, people did feel financially damaged. If the sales trend continues, then it goes to prove that 'no one really cares that much' and that the damages will be minimal at best. (Talking purely Consumer devices here - business services where business may need to purchase more cores to compensate - and thus increased per core licensing - is a totally different story).
As for the battery debacle; Apple have already offered to make good on this: $29 and you get a brand spanking new battery. Freeloaders feel they should get them free because, well, that's what freeloaders expect; in their world everything that upsets them should be free.
With a $29 battery, Apple give folk their speed back AND people get the bonus of a longer lasting battery inside their iDevice. Folk don't get that the latter part of the equation there is why they're not getting the bloody thing free of charge.
I think you got it all wrong. I think my iphone is more secure than a PC or Mac. The phone is behind a wall garden of curated and screened apps and protected by passcode, Touch id or faceid. The iPhone is probably the most secure device out there.
Love the way you folk try to draw equivalences in all manner of things. Just recently the debacle was compared to Tylenol. Now here's you saying the same thing about F150's with full sized batteries.
The battery on the F150 does NOT - I repeat NOT affect performance of the vehicle. The battery does NOT - Again I repeat NOT - provide power to the powertrain. In fact, the F150 can start with a totally dead battery if it's jumped. Once started, you can then drive at top speed whilst the battery recharges from the alternator.
Sheesh - if you were going to try the equivalency game, then the least you could have done is done it with a Volt or Prius - you know, something that DOES need a battery to do anything.
Meltdown and Spectre, were discovered
by security researchers at google project zero teams.
The big question what if Apple or Intel knew about this issue but kept quite for sometime?
I think all the chipset that involves with meltdown and spectre need to be recall to replace with new chipset.
Updating software is unacceptable, obviously it would decreases performance by 30-40% - this is not ideal for business or personal purpose.
Well... you have a simple solution then... don't buy any more computers and phones. Problem solved. Because if you think there will ever exist a computer that can't be hacked in some way, I can tell you with absolute certainty that none exists nor ever will.
There would be no cause of action for stuff you didn't buy. Might complain about not getting new stuff, Apple Mac users do that all the time, but can't sue Apple about it. On the other hand buying stuff the maker knew was defective and did not conform to what they told people they were selling is an issue.
If a phone shuts down at 50% battery life opening a single app then that phone is a complete design failure and should never have been released to the public.
Yeah then Apple should have a) Told people they were slowing the phones down b) Have their Applecare battery evaluation test MATCH the damn efficiency point they start throttling performance.
MANY MANY opeople (like me) went to apple store and told their phones were in PERFECT shape, just they're old so buy a new one so its fast for the new software.
Apple deserves to get FAR more roasted they have on this issue. It's either slimy or incompetent they allowed to occur.
p.s. Dont give me this bs that Apple was protecting my data. I had iphone 3gs and 4s that both hard crashed all the time when the batteries were dying and no data was lost. If it was luck fine but you're hugely overselling this data protection stuff. And your F150 analogy is completely wrong.
Last edited:
Actually I am pretty amazed how uninformed people on this forum are about basic principles of law. You can only sue someone you have a contract with and only if you are the damaged party. So you can't sue someone for something that happed to someone else.
Back to the story: An iPhone owner is a contractual partner of APPLE, and not INTEL. So this means in order to get your rightful right, you have to sue APPLE, it doesn't matter at all what Intel did or did not do because Intel is not your contractual partner. Period. And if APPLE is found guilty, then APPLE can sue INTEL to get damages refunded or whatever. So many lawsuits end up in court and the plaintiffs only then realise they sued the wrong person/company. If law works differently in the U.S., please excuse my comment. However, that's the way it works in Europe, anyways and I can't image it being any different in the U.S.
In my opinion any iPhone owner has the right to sue Apple on this specific matter because the device is not functioning as advertised or whatever. Some lawyer will certainly come up with a convincing reason for the lawsuit.
Cheers everyone
Back to the story: An iPhone owner is a contractual partner of APPLE, and not INTEL. So this means in order to get your rightful right, you have to sue APPLE, it doesn't matter at all what Intel did or did not do because Intel is not your contractual partner. Period. And if APPLE is found guilty, then APPLE can sue INTEL to get damages refunded or whatever. So many lawsuits end up in court and the plaintiffs only then realise they sued the wrong person/company. If law works differently in the U.S., please excuse my comment. However, that's the way it works in Europe, anyways and I can't image it being any different in the U.S.
In my opinion any iPhone owner has the right to sue Apple on this specific matter because the device is not functioning as advertised or whatever. Some lawyer will certainly come up with a convincing reason for the lawsuit.
Cheers everyone
True, but if Intel are not found guilty (and there's way more chance of them being sued than anyone else) then Apple and others are off the hook.
I don't believe so and I honestly don't think any of these lawsuits are going to go anywhere but in the case of older batteries and throttling their lack of transparency on what the affects of the new battery management features would be was a major breach of their customers trust. I hope all the bad press serves as a lesson to Apple, but they'll probably just try harder not to get caught next time. That said I hope there are real consequences for Apple in terms of lost sales.
You do realize that this is a common problem that affects ALL modern day smartphones, right? It's basic battery 101. Until we come up with a new paradigm for batteries, they're going to continue to exhibit these issues.
you are correct, however this one is identified and now out in the open, other than if your old device is completely broken, why buy something "new" that is affected by this new security issue?
So you would prefer your battery to die sooner and crash more often as it does instead of lasting longer and not crashing as Apple mitigated by adjusting the processor speed during battery spike as they naturally age? I actually like that I’m able to stay updated on my 4 year old phone and buy a new one when I’m ready. So many owners I know of other platforms have to buy new phones multiple times while I get a new phone via software every September.
I
I don’t think intel will take much of a hit. It’s just something that came from nowhere. But if intel continues to sell defective chips after the fact, then they have a problem. Apple needs to be careful here.