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 Testifies on iPhone Throttling Before Canadian Parliamentary Committee
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let me break this down for you. You are ignorant of Spanish consumer protection laws and their corollary bureaucratic procedures, and of the weight they carry in the country I’m in: http://www.spainexpat.com/spain/inf...lamaciones-official-consumer-complaint-forms/
Last edited by a moderator:
Do we know that it's common to happen for devices just one year old? My Iphone 6 is about three years old and on 645 battery cycles. I don't have the throttling on mine, at least not according to Geekbecnch 4.
So don’t buy their product. Problem solved.
[doublepost=1519987989][/doublepost]
So don’t buy their product. And for those who think it is a reasonable explanation, they can continue to
That is inherently wrong approach. Of course consumers may vote with a wallet but there should be also legal ramification of that kind of mistakes. Companies are not there to make money only They should be hold responsible for the mistakes. As average consumers stand no chance in the legal fight the government levels action should be taken.
Again I am not a battery specialist but there is something wrong with the design either of battery or the phone. I have never experienced any issues except of 6/7 phones.
You’re calling “defective” a 4-year-old small battery that doesn’t hold a normal charge after a thousand charging cycles. Maybe you think Apple should be filling its batteries with unicorn fairy dust instead of lithium. While this kind of storage degradation happens to lithium batteries as they age, I hear that unicorn fairy dust batteries are unaffected.
Yes and no. There are consumer protection laws. And there is fraud. Throttling a CPU would qualify. Also, that's basically implementing obscolescence by software additionally to shortened battery life -especially since this behavior was also observed when the iPhone was plugged in. So, the battery was just used as a means to implement the "performance degradation by aging". Which means using this you will still have bad performance for no reason at all. Last but not least it just needs one person to file a complaint -and that person can be someone of the government. Since governments like to use iPhones as well (and might spend tax payers money on it) it's actually quite likely someone there files a complaint.
I expect this to be a veeeeryyyy expensive chapter for Apple. Penalties for this are quite high as they are usually measured by the amount of profit the manufacturer made by earlier replacements. In the case of Apple this will be quite some Millions.
Last edited:
Didn't you know, Apple is supposed to somehow manage to make a perfect battery because, well, they're Apple!
Eh, Apple.
- They produced phones with cheap batteries (iPhone 6/6s/7) that, in some cases, couldnt even whitstand powering CPU after only one year(i7)
- They decided to solve this problem by throttling the CPU of these phones without telling anybody about it.
- When people got the new iOS and saw all the lag, they logically concluded that the phone's hardware is not on par with the new software, hence the phone is slow and they need a new one. At this point apple was well aware of this problem but was quiet about it.
- When crap hit the fan, and the news about bad batteries got out, people went to Apple store only to be reminded by their "geniuses" that, according to their Apple-made-battery-inspecting-software, their batteries are completely fine. So iphone owners were now, as far as Apple is concerned, facing two decisions: Either buy a new phone, or stick with the laggy one.
- When Apple issued an apology, they gave their iphone users a chance to replace the battery for only 20$. Apple at that point knew damn well, that producing new batteries for older phones, and changing them all in some reasonable time, was all but science fiction. So did they give their users a chance to at least downgrade their laggy iphones to older iOS? Nope. Let them keep waiting for months to get a new battery and maybe, they'll just buy a new iphone when they get tired of waiting.
If Apple wins this case, it'll be only due to good lawyers.
- They produced phones with cheap batteries (iPhone 6/6s/7) that, in some cases, couldnt even whitstand powering CPU after only one year(i7)
- They decided to solve this problem by throttling the CPU of these phones without telling anybody about it.
- When people got the new iOS and saw all the lag, they logically concluded that the phone's hardware is not on par with the new software, hence the phone is slow and they need a new one. At this point apple was well aware of this problem but was quiet about it.
- When crap hit the fan, and the news about bad batteries got out, people went to Apple store only to be reminded by their "geniuses" that, according to their Apple-made-battery-inspecting-software, their batteries are completely fine. So iphone owners were now, as far as Apple is concerned, facing two decisions: Either buy a new phone, or stick with the laggy one.
- When Apple issued an apology, they gave their iphone users a chance to replace the battery for only 20$. Apple at that point knew damn well, that producing new batteries for older phones, and changing them all in some reasonable time, was all but science fiction. So did they give their users a chance to at least downgrade their laggy iphones to older iOS? Nope. Let them keep waiting for months to get a new battery and maybe, they'll just buy a new iphone when they get tired of waiting.
If Apple wins this case, it'll be only due to good lawyers.
I bought a DJI Phantom 3 years ago with a "Li-Ion battery". Still function as it was on day one... Stop making excuses for Apple.
I think trust for Apply is gone for many. They don't tell the truth whenever it is good for them .. and the statement 'Our motivation is always the user' is really funny. Their primary concern is $ harvesting and yes, user is really needed for that. Your example of 64/256 is a nice example how they really care about the users. There are countless similar examples like soldered, non-replaceable/non-extendable ssd in mbp where higher capacities are VERY expensive, creating unnecessary iPhone versions just to be able to sell the top model for huge $ and then sell you other piece (with something removed or worse) for an acceptable money (in my opinion there should just be two maxed out phones - smaller and bigger) etc. etc. User is really somewhere in the distance nowadays..
I agree with you. I don't want to upgrade a phone every 2-3 years because the battery starts to degrade rapidly in this time frame and especially with the going prices for phones these days. For what and how I use my phone, I can't justify paying $600+ for a new one. The only thing important for me is reliable service from the phone and from the service provider.
[doublepost=1519995572][/doublepost]
Yes, when we look at their quarterly, not yearly, profits, it's in the billions of dollars. Can they lower the price of the products a bit for the consumers, sure they can.
That's because DJI not only chose a quality battery, but also sized it accordingly up to the job capacity wise.
Uhm here's the issue you might have missed - We already HAVE bought their products. The issue at hand is Apple's complete deceitfulness in sneaking a piece of software on their customer's phones, making THEM feel like idiots by lying about it when their customers knew something was wrong and forcing their customers, at their customer's expense, to buy new batteries thinking there was something wrong with them when it was Apple's fault.
Are you kidding? Businesses are in business to make money. Of course they want to make as much money as possible. Wouldn't you and your business? And you want to call them greedy for doing what they are SUPPOSED to do? Steve Jobs wanted people to believe that it was an "experience". It was marketing. It sold phones and other devices. Businesses are indeed motivated by the user's willingness to buy their products. If not, they don't have a business. Should Apple be shot and dismembered for reaching a chord in the public so that they would buy their stuff?
Meanwhile, the CRTC & government bodies continue to ignore the abusive & harmful practices by the telecom industries on a daily basis...
Yup. An overweight battery to cost you money, weigh down your drone, and to power sending your data off to who knows where or what hackers or governments are snooping around in it.
We do not want our customers to experience interruptions in the use of their iPhones, whether that is making an emergency phone call, taking a picture, sharing a post, or watching the final minutes of a movie.
But we do want to give them just enough headache that they opt to purchase a new phone every year.
But we do want to give them just enough headache that they opt to purchase a new phone every year.
I guess you’ve forgotten all about apple refusing to replace customers batteries even if they offered to pay full price if it “passed” their tests, I’ve seen cases of people passing the apple test with less than the 80% capacity cut off.
You’ve really got it bad don’t you? You think that because you have a official complaint channel through your government when you can’t get your way that you are somehow immune from supply and demand of global part constraints?
I’m so sorry you got an upgraded device, that must be so hard to deal with, I can’t imagine the hardships you’re going through. Don’t forget to submit a complaint via the Spanish equivalent of the B.B.B. the next time you’re food isn’t exactly how you ordered it.
[doublepost=1520000515][/doublepost]
Apple will only officially “refuse” to repair a battery if it’s above 80% and covered under warranty in some way. You’ve always been able to pay full cost for a battery replacement, Apple just wouldn’t do it for free unless it’s considered consumed or failed and under warranty. So
I don’t see how it could “pass” when it can only be failed or consumed after 80%
Last edited by a moderator:
And you have no idea how many did. Must be quite a few though since this problem now has governments looking into it.
Over 60 lawsuits, maybe legit maybe not, but it seems likely that its more than many here want to think
The spin:
"We do not want our customers to experience interruptions in the use of their iPhones, whether that is making an emergency phone call, taking a picture, sharing a post, or watching the final minutes of a movie. The sole purpose of the software update in this case was to help customers to continue to use older iPhones with aging batteries without shutdowns - not to drive them to buy newer devices."
The likely reality:
"We do not want to risk the possibility that social reporting of our phones shutting off unexpectedly could reach a critical mass and generate headlines in the media. That could damage our brand image and impact future sales. However, we also did not want to admit that our solution was a bandaid approach—that it throttles performance—when owners could have resolved the issue by replacing their deficient batteries. We didn't discourage or prevent customers from replacing their batteries, but we didn't suggest it either. Who doesn't like a new phone? Huh?"
"We do not want our customers to experience interruptions in the use of their iPhones, whether that is making an emergency phone call, taking a picture, sharing a post, or watching the final minutes of a movie. The sole purpose of the software update in this case was to help customers to continue to use older iPhones with aging batteries without shutdowns - not to drive them to buy newer devices."
The likely reality:
"We do not want to risk the possibility that social reporting of our phones shutting off unexpectedly could reach a critical mass and generate headlines in the media. That could damage our brand image and impact future sales. However, we also did not want to admit that our solution was a bandaid approach—that it throttles performance—when owners could have resolved the issue by replacing their deficient batteries. We didn't discourage or prevent customers from replacing their batteries, but we didn't suggest it either. Who doesn't like a new phone? Huh?"
