Apple Wins Lawsuit Over Group FaceTime Eavesdropping Bug

[realtuner]

That's a terrible idea to solve the problem though. Especially for a company that supposedly values privacy.

I never claimed it’s what happened. I’m saying it’s a possibility as to how a simple bug could cause this issue (as opposed to conspiracy theorists claiming it’s for eavesdropping or other nefarious purposes).

Even then, my idea is perfectly sound and maintains privacy. If content is kept hidden until a call is accepted there’s no privacy risk.

 

[lkrupp]

Apple... the ones who believe in privacy, unless it’s their buggy software allowing anyone to spy on you....

I hope the plaintiff can get their act together and produce a decent case against Apple.

[doublepost=1557519540][/doublepost]

Just wondering, do you have the same opinion when the company involved is not Apple? Curious as many Apple fans don’t have that same opinion of anyone else who isn’t Apple..

Other platforms (Windows, Android) have had some very atrocious bugs that exposed users to hackers and malware that weren’t fixed immediately either. Some Android bugs are still not fixed or patched becasue user’s phones don't get updated. Are your feelings the same regarding Microsoft and Google?

 

[BootsWalking]

I see what you did there.

I truly believe Apple was acting in the best interest of users. Was it a perfect situation? No, but I don't think they were intentionally trying to harm anyone in any way. Quite the opposite. But too many people feel they were somehow "ripped off" by the strategy. Apple did not lie. Prove that.

I don't see how slowing the phones' CPUs down to 50% of their original performance was in the best interest of users. They clearly did that to avoid the shutdown issue (or more specifically, a full recall that would be necessitated to admitting such an issue), which itself was caused by the iPhone 6-series design defect of not accounting for the reduced max-current capable from an average-wear battery.

As for proving Apple's lie, they claimed the problem was the result of aging batteries not being able to deliver peak load/current. In actuality the problem was that Apple didn't properly design the iPhone 6 to account for the fact that all aging batteries have reduced peak load/current. This issue wasn't new to batteries in the iPhone 6, and the shutdown problem wasn't a widespread issue on any phone before or after the 6-series.

 

[realtuner]

I don't see how slowing the phones' CPUs down to 50% of their original performance was in the best interest of users. They clearly did that to avoid the shutdown issue (or more specifically, a full recall that would be necessitated to admitting such an issue), which itself was caused by the iPhone 6-series design defect of not accounting for the reduced max-current capable from an average-wear battery.

As for proving Apple's lie, they claimed the problem was the result of aging batteries not being able to deliver peak load/current. In actuality the problem was that Apple didn't properly design the iPhone 6 to account for the fact that all aging batteries have reduced peak load/current. This issue wasn't new to batteries in the iPhone 6, and the shutdown problem wasn't a widespread issue on any phone before or after the 6-series.

Lies.

The fault was from “some” batteries not being able to maintain current, not from a design flaw. Your claim that all batteries have reduced current (enough to cause a shutdown) is a straight up lie. While many people had the issue, millions more never experienced it. That simple fact proves your claim to be the lie, not Apples.
[doublepost=1557525189][/doublepost]

If it wasn't a design defect then why is it that only the iPhone 6 series of phones would reset/shutdown during peak current usage on an average-wear battery, where no model before or after the 6-series had a systemic issue with that?

Oh look, another logical fallacy. I can do that too.

If the design flaw was only for the iPhone 6, then why did Apple allow people to get a $29 battery for 6, 6S, SE or 7? Why did iOS have code in it to prevent shutdowns on these devices instead of only making the code work with the iPhone 6?

 

[kildraik]

(Snip)... which itself was caused by the iPhone 6-series design defect of not accounting for the reduced max-current capable from an average-wear battery.

As for proving Apple's lie, they claimed the problem was the result of aging batteries not being able to deliver peak load/current. In actuality the problem was that Apple didn't properly design the iPhone 6 to account for the fact that all aging batteries have reduced peak load/current. This issue wasn't new to batteries in the iPhone 6, and the shutdown problem wasn't a widespread issue on any phone before or after the 6-series.

The batteries were indeed NOT able to deliver peak current after degradation and consumption, and by design, Apple’s (ahem, ALL) processors are power hungry. Throttling a device’s operating frequency did indeed eliminate shutdowns, after a battery had degraded and reached consumption.

A lot changed between the the 5s and the 6, including consumer behaviour in upgrade cycling. This is when people started keeping their devices longer, and around the same time carrier subsidies started disappearing in mid-2015, meaning no more $199 (or whatever) iPhone for a two-year contract with your carrier. With consumers starting to move towards not wanting to pay well into the realm of $600+ (introduction of monthly payments for the device’s full price) for a new device, they simply kept them longer, and no amount of testing outside of, “time used,” can account for real-world usage. The variables are infinite, and the issue itself was not a design flaw, but a result of device usage of well into 3-4 years, which before the iPhone 6, was rare, if not extremely rare.

The iPhone 6 was designed for a market environment of consistent upgrade cycles, which died shortly after release, changing the entire concept of mobile device ownership and ownership costs. It was more or less a matter of bad timing in upgrade viability, and subsequently, iPhones started becoming more serviceable with modular repairs.

In my opinion.

 

[I7guy]

If it wasn't a design defect then why is it that only the iPhone 6 series of phones would reset/shutdown during peak current usage on an average-wear battery, where no model before or after the 6-series had a systemic issue with that?

All phones shutdown under some low power conditions, android phones included.

 

[russell_314]

I have many things I dislike about Apple, but I'm also a software developer and I know from hard experience that even the best testing strategies and the most stringent code reviews cannot catch EVERY bug. I'm in total agreement with this decision.

This is one of the problems with our world today. As soon as something goes wrong, there's a line of people waiting to accuse you of negligence and malice. It's a wonder anyone actually gets ahead in the world today.

Even if someone - a single person or a very small group - within Apple deliberately introduced a bug that could be misused, it's hardly fair to blame the entire corporation. To make a claim like this you'd have to be able to claim that Apple, as a company, deliberately and with full knowledge introduced and pushed a bug that allowed eavesdropping. And you'd also have to be able to say it was Apple's own decision (i.e. not because of government coercion). Even though I disagree with many of Apple's business practices, I can't believe the company would approve that willingly and knowingly.

We need to stop assuming everyone is out to get us, that everyone is deliberately acting against us. Sometimes mistakes are made. Sometimes you have to fix your mistake. But it's not fair to accuse anyone of malice when the fact is that it was just a mistake.

Of course, the problem with our legal system - and with any system for that matter - is that unless someone stupidly admitted in a recording or letter that they were acting maliciously, you cannot prove what was going through anyone's head.

I couldn't have said it better. The problem is lawyers get paid a commission so their is big money in lawsuits. The sad thing is when a company gets sued regardless if they win or lose their customers always lose. You pay for lawyers to play legal games when you buy products.

 

[BootsWalking]

Lies.

The fault was from “some” batteries not being able to maintain current, not from a design flaw. Your claim that all batteries have reduced current (enough to cause a shutdown) is a straight up lie. While many people had the issue, millions more never experienced it. That simple fact proves your claim to be the lie, not Apples.

Apple disagrees with you:

"Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which includes overall performance and prolonging the life of their devices. Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components"

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/a...ones-with-older-batteries-are-running-slower/

Do you see any mention of "some" batteries in Apple's statement?

Oh look, another logical fallacy. I can do that too.

If the design flaw was only for the iPhone 6, then why did Apple allow people to get a $29 battery for 6, 6S, SE or 7? Why did iOS have code in it to prevent shutdowns on these devices instead of only making the code work with the iPhone 6?

Apple "allowed them" the $29 upgrades because they were facing multiple class-action lawsuits about the issue. As for why Apple implemented it on other phones, no idea - perhaps it was their attempt at obscuring the fact the issue was a design defect unique to the iPhone 6 series. No models had widespread issues of shutdowns anywhere near the level of the iPhone 6 series, thus the issue was specific to the iPhone 6 series.
[doublepost=1557527587][/doublepost]

All phones shutdown under some low power conditions, android phones included.

Yet no phones other than iPhone 6 series had widespread reports of shutdowns, so your claim has no merit.

 

[russell_314]

Are we still talking about the iPhone 6 in 2019? LMAO

 

[Fixey]

What was he doing with his phone turned on at the time, security recommends that talks of this nature are done with any electronic devices turned off.

 

[I7guy]

...Yet no phones other than iPhone 6 series had widespread reports of shutdowns, so your claim has no merit.

Define widespread. Google search reveals android phones do the same thing except give no warning and the consumer is unaware why. So IMO, my claim has merit. But we can debate this seemingly endlessly.

At any rate the plaintiffs haven’t proven their point.

 

[realtuner]

Apple disagrees with you:

"Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which includes overall performance and prolonging the life of their devices. Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components"

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/a...ones-with-older-batteries-are-running-slower/

Do you see any mention of "some" batteries in Apple's statement?

Apples statement is a general one regarding lithium batteries. It is in no way an admission that ALL their batteries degrade to the point of causing a shutdown.

For further proof we can look at Cooks statement at the beginning of 2019 where Apple replaced 11 million batteries in 2018, an increase over their usual 1-2 million battery replacements. This was, obviously, because of all the people who got battery replacements done on the $29 replacement program. So out of 500 million eligible iPhones sold, only 9-10 million go their batteries replaced. That represents only 2% of devices. Your claim it was a widespread issue is absolutely false.

Apple "allowed them" the $29 upgrades because they were facing multiple class-action lawsuits about the issue. As for why Apple implemented it on other phones, no idea - perhaps it was their attempt at obscuring the fact the issue was a design defect unique to the iPhone 6 series. No models had widespread issues of shutdowns anywhere near the level of the iPhone 6 series, thus the issue was specific to the iPhone 6 series.

More lies. The lawsuits have nothing to do with the $29 battery program. If a company does something wrong, they can still be sued and held liable even if they offer some type of repair/fix. A well-known example in antennagate, where Apple offered free bumpers. Apples offer of a fix didn't stop the class action suit from proceeding (and getting settled).

You seem to lack understanding of how the legal system works if you think Apple can "cancel" lawsuits by offering battery upgrades.

Yet no phones other than iPhone 6 series had widespread reports of shutdowns, so your claim has no merit.

The numerous threads on MacRumors about the iPhone battery shutdown issue are full of posters here who had shutdowns/slowdowns with the 6S and 7. People even posted their Geekbench results to prove it. Are you claiming all of those people are liars and that the problem was only confined to the 6?

 

[apolloa]

There is no case, because they agreed to Apple’s Terms of Service.

I presume your being sarcastic? It’s the only way that comment makes sense...

Other platforms (Windows, Android) have had some very atrocious bugs that exposed users to hackers and malware that weren’t fixed immediately either. Some Android bugs are still not fixed or patched becasue user’s phones don't get updated. Are your feelings the same regarding Microsoft and Google?

Of course I do, Question is do Apple fans make the same excuses for Google and Microsoft as they do for Apple? My guess is not and they are just utterly utterly hypocritical.. if I remember this bug was reported to Apple a fair bit of time before they took any action by that young girl.
Ah here we go, it was reported a week before Apple took action, and the internet knew about it for that week too..

http://www.theverge.com/2019/1/29/18202398/apple-facetime-bug-warned-eavesdropping

That’s indefensible really.

 

[Rocketman]

Dismissed without prejudice till 7 June. Not "won". Yet.

 

[miniyou64]

Please explain why you think that. Do you disagree with the judgment?
I disagree with all of it. Its clogged clunky filled with loopholes, mostly for the government. They don’t even follow their own rules and it certainly does not operate in the best interest of the people.

 

[hortod1]

Lucky for him, there are plenty of ambulances to chase out there.

 

[yvr]

These frivolous lawsuits make it harder for legitimate lawsuits to be taken seriously, such as Apple intentionally slowing down phones due to a design defect, hiding it, then lying about it when discovered.

Since when is getting old a design defect? Would it be better if phones went to Carousel when they turn 2?

 

[acader]

The odds of winning or reaching a settlement in a lawsuit are far greater than a lottery. If this lawyer had been a little patient and done his homework before rushing off to file a suit, he would have walked away with a nice chunk of change. No software can be perfect. Legitimate companies have to carry hefty insurance to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits or gold diggers.

 

[az431]

The entire legal system is a joke.

The dismissal of a frivolous lawsuit demonstrates quite the opposite actually.

 

[BootsWalking]

Apples statement is a general one regarding lithium batteries. It is in no way an admission that ALL their batteries degrade to the point of causing a shutdown.

LOL. You claimed that only some batteries are affected, Apple releases a clear statement that lithium batteries degrade to the point of causing shutdowns in the phones, and now you're claiming Apple statement says something different than it does. You're grasping for straws and fabricating Apple's intention when their words couldn't be any clearer.

For further proof we can look at Cooks statement at the beginning of 2019 where Apple replaced 11 million batteries in 2018, an increase over their usual 1-2 million battery replacements. This was, obviously, because of all the people who got battery replacements done on the $29 replacement program. So out of 500 million eligible iPhones sold, only 9-10 million go their batteries replaced. That represents only 2% of devices. Your claim it was a widespread issue is absolutely false.

You're actually trying to make the case that 9-10 million battery replacements doesn't represent a widespread issue? And that doesn't even count the batteries replaced before Apple's $29 program since Apple dragged their feet on admitting a problem.

More lies. The lawsuits have nothing to do with the $29 battery program. If a company does something wrong, they can still be sued and held liable even if they offer some type of repair/fix. A well-known example in antennagate, where Apple offered free bumpers. Apples offer of a fix didn't stop the class action suit from proceeding (and getting settled).

Right, it's just a coincidence that after several class action lawsuits were filed against Apple over their battery problems that Apple instituted their $29 replacement program. You're being willfully blind.

You seem to lack understanding of how the legal system works if you think Apple can "cancel" lawsuits by offering battery upgrades.

You seem to lack understanding of how PR and damage control works. By offering the $29 program Apple relieves pressure and incentive of the class-action lawsuits since the settlement of any such lawsuit would look similar to what Apple offered.

The numerous threads on MacRumors about the iPhone battery shutdown issue are full of posters here who had shutdowns/slowdowns with the 6S and 7. People even posted their Geekbench results to prove it. Are you claiming all of those people are liars and that the problem was only confined to the 6?

Great, why don't you do up a tally and see how many iPhone 7's experienced the shutdowns versus the iPhone 6-series phones (btw, 6-series is both iPhone 6 and 6s).

 

[gregmancuso]

Since when is getting old a design defect? Would it be better if phones went to Carousel when they turn 2?

+1 for the Logan's Run reference. And, up until a few years ago that's exactly what happened. 1, maybe 2 years, and the phones were off to Ebay or Gazelle...

 

[I7guy]

...You're actually trying to make the case that 9-10 million battery replacements doesn't represent a widespread issue? And that doesn't even count the batteries replaced before Apple's $29 program since Apple dragged their feet on admitting a problem.

Correct. Those battery replacements were on sale and plenty of people took advantage of the sale in order to get additional life out of their device. Pound on any li-ion battery for two years or so, with heat, gps usage and many charges and the battery will degrade. Some even catch fire as what happened on the airliner. Apple to their credit, actually replaced some of the batteries for free. So in retrospect, people took advantage of a sale to replace batteries that naturally degrade over time with a lot of usage.

Right, it's just a coincidence that after several class action lawsuits were filed against Apple over their battery problems that Apple instituted their $29 replacement program. You're being willfully blind.

There is some confusion of correlation with causation.

Great, why don't you do up a tally and see how many iPhone 7's experienced the shutdowns versus the iPhone 6-series phones (btw, 6-series is both iPhone 6 and 6s).

I leave this as an exercise to the poster who suggested it.

 

[BvizioN]

Apple did not "win" the lawsuit. The court dismissed the complaint on a "without prejudice" basis. For non-lawyers, that means that plaintiff's complaint had defects, but he's allowed to correct those defects and re-file.

A "win" would be a dismissal with prejudice. That's not what happened here.

You can spin that on whatever angle you want!
On this case, people trying to get quick rich with Apple's money did not succeed and in my book that makes them losers and Apple winner.

 

[Gasu E.]

Apple disagrees with you:

"Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which includes overall performance and prolonging the life of their devices. Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components"

Source: https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/a...ones-with-older-batteries-are-running-slower/

Do you see any mention of "some" batteries in Apple's statement?

Your analysis of Apple's statement makes no sense. All such batteries age to some extent, but the rate that they age varies. There's a current threshold below which the device will not operate. If some batteries age faster than others, then for a given amount of time, some batteries will still be able to reach the threshold, and some won't. Do you interpret Apple's statement as implying all such batteries age at the same rate?

 

[matrix07]

But Apple DID say "what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone" and that's a lie

A mistake is not a lie. When a mistake happens you correct it. With a lie there’s nothing to correct.

That said, I love that this guy sue. The more people sue Apple, the more Apple is kept on their toes, and the more I trust their products. It’s almost like quality controlled by lawsuits.