Class Action Lawsuit Accuses Apple of Crippling iPhone 4s With iOS 9 Update

[thermodynamic]

Planned obsolescence can be real, but even this feels a tad wrong. Apple may not have tested on the iphone 4s, especially if it is on the official obsolete list.

Any new OS can bring about possible issues - having to wipe the internal memory and start from scratch is a very common workaround.

And on a side note:

Is the iphone 4 on the official obsolete list?

Are the iphone 4s owners mac owners? And as most mac users around here say, they have machines going back to 2007 (like in the responses to the news article how the 2009 Mac models are officially made obsolete) that use the newest OSes without a performance hit so why would the iphone philosophy be any different?

Is Apple known for making new devices that are tightly integrated with one another, even with newer phones not having excessive amounts of new features to keep the ease-of-use selling point? Or so Apple pundits remind us from time to time...

 

[DoctorKrabs]

Trouble is with this kind of thing people are comparing the latest release of 8 to early releases of 9.

The speed of iOS 9 increased from 9.0 to 9.1 so there is no reason 9.4 (or whatever revision they get to this time) won't be faster than 8.4.1

However if it doesn't then you have a case.

There's still a case no matter what because Apple's site doesn't say "future versions of iOS 9" will see performance improvements over iOS 8. They said iOS 9. That's 9.0 as well.

 

[thermodynamic]

How about suing Android manufacturers for neglecting to patch major vulnerabilities?

Apple doesn't own Android.

Major phone carriers tailor the Android OS to the phones, so maybe AT&T and the competition are the ones closer to being at fault for being lazy, but as profit is defined as "the least amount of work for the most amount of money" and obviously having to work means less profit and the shareholders gambling on their companies might not like that. Great place to put retirement money, casinos that say "Don't afford to invest what you can't afford to lose".

But Apple was the first to ignite the modern market, so maybe Apple can be sued for a phone OS that lacks basic firewall capabilities (firewalls do prevent some types of attacks, nobody claiming Apple is immune to malware or attack is not going to get very far with that outlandish claim)? Or a phone OS that invites adware that can contain malware payload? We all know the times the app store, developer site, SMS database, etc, etc, were reported as being hacked... the same goes for Android as none of them cared about putting in safeguards from the get-go - as opposed to the lessons taught by Windows over the decades...


Lastly, it's very simple:
http://www.google.com/search?q=ios+secure+myth
http://www.google.com/search?q=ios+sms+database+hacked
http://www.google.com/search?q=ios+safari+hacked
http://www.google.com/search?q=ipad+hacked
http://www.google.com/search?q=ios+jailbreak+one+click
http://www.google.com/search?q=cydia+firewall
etc
etc
etc

 

[applezulu]

It's a bit of a 'catch-22,' isn't it? Check these forums when Apple releases a new OS or a new device. You'll find myriad complaints of incrementalism and that they're not innovating fast enough. Yet, compare an iPhone 4s at its initial release with a 6s at its initial release, and there are some pretty significant upgrades in just a few of years' time. Yet, for many, this isn't fast enough.

Along with the hardware upgrades come software upgrades. Apple is able to achieve significant stability over competitors, simply because iOS has to anticipate and accommodate a much smaller number of devices, and thus fewer variables. Nonetheless, writing an OS that will handle both the latest features and power of a 6s as well as smoothly bring along a legacy 4s is going to be challenging.

So 4s owners are upset that the latest OS is too bloated and slows down their devices. They should be able to easily revert to an earlier OS after experiencing the slowdown, some say. Perhaps. Apple should've just drawn the line and not even offered the newest OS to 4s owners. Perhaps.

Don't you think, though, that the same "planned obsolescence" argument would be made by the same and other 4s users, because their devices were no longer being properly supported with upgrades? Of course they would.

It's simply a catch-22 situation. If Apple didn't continue rolling out new devices and operating systems at least annually, they would quickly go out of business for failing to innovate. With that demand for upgrades comes the eventual obsolescence of the older devices, planned or not. Of course on some level it benefits the manufacturer, because people must buy the new devices to keep up, and there is doubtless planned management of that process. On some level, it's unavoidable, though, isn't it? It's also unavoidable that those caught on the trailing edge are going to be irritated by it, isn't it?

 

[AustinIllini]

It's a bit of a 'catch-22,' isn't it? Check these forums when Apple releases a new OS or a new device. You'll find myriad complaints of incrementalism and that they're not innovating fast enough. Yet, compare an iPhone 4s at its initial release with a 6s at its initial release, and there are some pretty significant upgrades in just a few of years' time. Yet, for many, this isn't fast enough.

Let's be honest, though. Even with all the complaints on the forums here, they represent a vocal minority.

 

[sracer]

Whil

Don't you think, though, that the same "planned obsolescence" argument would be made by the same and other 4s users, because their devices were no longer being properly supported with upgrades? Of course they would.

Sorry, no. This excuse gets trotted out every time there is a discussion about Apple being more conservative in what devices they allow to upgrade. Please show us the complaints made by people who owned the iPhone 4 complaining that they couldn't upgrade to a version of iOS beyond what Apple allows.

 

[nightcap965]

Planned obsolescence can be real, but even this feels a tad wrong. Apple may not have tested on the iphone 4s, especially if it is on the official obsolete list.

Any new OS can bring about possible issues - having to wipe the internal memory and start from scratch is a very common workaround.

And on a side note:

Is the iphone 4 on the official obsolete list?

Are the iphone 4s owners mac owners? And as most mac users around here say, they have machines going back to 2007 (like in the responses to the news article how the 2009 Mac models are officially made obsolete) that use the newest OSes without a performance hit so why would the iphone philosophy be any different?

Is Apple known for making new devices that are tightly integrated with one another, even with newer phones not having excessive amounts of new features to keep the ease-of-use selling point? Or so Apple pundits remind us from time to time...

Is an iPhone a Mac? Nope. The realistic life expectancy of a mobile phone is a good deal shorter than the life expectancy of a desktop or laptop.

 

[TMRJIJ]

So because someone has an experience other than yours they must be lying. How sad. But I guess it is to be expected.

If his experience is bad he needs to move on to something that suits his needs. Android is his choice. Nobody is telling him otherwise.
If you actually read his comment he believes in this fake planned obsolescence theory which is the lie. Older hardware will have trouble with newer software. It is not planned but it will happen over time and happens to all devices at some point.
You misinterpreted my comment. My experience was a complete separate thought from the first sentence.

 

[Jsameds]

There's still a case no matter what because Apple's site doesn't say "future versions of iOS 9" will see performance improvements over iOS 8. They said iOS 9. That's 9.0.

Well technically iOS 9 is anything that starts with a 9

 

[Michael Goff]

So because someone has an experience other than yours they must be lying. How sad. But I guess it is to be expected.



While you are correct with regard to the upgrade notification badge (which is like the eye of Sauron burning a hole in one's soul), if for any reason one needs to restore their device, their only option is to get the latest version of iOS supported for that device... NOT the version of iOS that was on it.

Both sides have an issues with YMMV. People are called fanboys for saying their phone works better on these very forums.

 

[TMRJIJ]

Whil

Sorry, no. This excuse gets trotted out every time there is a discussion about Apple being more conservative in what devices they allow to upgrade. Please show us the complaints made by people who owned the iPhone 4 complaining that they couldn't upgrade to a version of iOS beyond what Apple allows.

Complaint #1: My iPhone 4 didn't support iOS 8 and its new features so I had to upgrade to an iPhone 6.

Just because there wasn't a silly lawsuit article posted on front page on MacRumors doesn't mean people don't complain.

 

[TMRJIJ]

There's still a case no matter what because Apple's site doesn't say "future versions of iOS 9" will see performance improvements over iOS 8. They said iOS 9. That's 9.0.

Apple advertised the Photos app in OS X Yosemite but it wasn't available until 10.10.3. iOS 9 is the general name of the OS.

 

[DoctorKrabs]

Apple advertised the Photos app in OS X Yosemite but it wasn't available until 10.10.3. iOS 9 is the general name of the OS.

The day they announced Photos for OS X they said it wouldn't be available until 2015.

And when they delayed iCloud Photo Library, they removed any mention of it from their site until iOS 8.1 was out with the feature so they were giving out accurate information.

At 2:52 "Now it's going to be shipping early next year, but I'd like to give a sneak peek now."

There was never such a statement that iOS 9's performance boost would be made available "in 2016".

 

[Haxley]

It's really interesting this stupid comment get so many votes.

IOS 9 is the worst OS ever.

It gets so many votes mainly because it was the first comment and appeals to the gut reaction of many readers. Your comment, "...worst OS ever" on the other hand, is truly stupid

 

[bunnspecial]

If nothing else, I'd just love to be able to downgrade to an older version of iOS.

The Mac I'm using now would have originally shipped with a late release of Lion. If I were so inclined, I could have it running any version of OS X between Lion and El Capitan. If I started now, I'd probably be running set-up assistant on the version of OS X of my choice in the next half hour to 45 minutes. Granted I can do that because I've downlaoded and saved the installers for every version of OS X since 10.7, and have physical media for ALL of the older ones, but still it's possible.

I no longer use my iPhone 4s, but I'd like to be able to use it as an iPod or in some other secondary function. Upgrading it to iOS 8(which I had to do to transfer my information to my 6) basically made it useless. I know there's an involved work-around to take it back to iOS 6(which, IMO, is where it ran best) but I haven't tackled it. I'd love to be able to downgrade as easily as I can a Mac.

 

[peterdevries]

Sorry, no. This excuse gets trotted out every time there is a discussion about Apple being more conservative in what devices they allow to upgrade. Please show us the complaints made by people who owned the iPhone 4 complaining that they couldn't upgrade to a version of iOS beyond what Apple allows.

I have seen these complaints on this forum. There weren't many, but they were there. Your request is not completely fair though. It is reasonable to assume that the vast majority of people here upgrade reasonably quickly (this being an Apple enthusiast forum). Therefore it is more likely that people complain here about upgrades crippling their phones, than it is that they complain about their phones being removed from support.

What applezulu writes about this being a catch-22 is absolutely correct.

 

[lederermc]

I'm surprised there isn't a requirement that a devices original OS is always reinstall-able. These lawsuits would all go away.

 

[Dubberton]

Wow the comments on this article are insane. The plaintiff has a case if they can find a way to compare the performance before and after updating.

It's great that Apple updates devices but they shouldn't do it at the expense of the devices slowing down.

I've long suspected some Apple PR monitor these threads just to say some of the comments you refer to. We always have the Apple zealots chiming in first fill the initial few comments, which I find rather suspicious.

Anyways, Apple PR conspiracy theories aside, in my eyes this is the equivalent of going in for a free oil change (hence a free update, advertised improvement and features) to a dealership and coming out worse off. It really doesn't have to be more complex than that. If some moron wants to argue it's still my fault because I didn't read the fine print and should be content with my now useless iPhone; please come back to earth. This is a totally unethical business practice that I've always harbored a bit of resentment towards Apple for.

 

[Altis]

What a joke. As if Craig Federighi tells his engineers to insert code that will intentionally slow down older devices. People sue for anything and everything these days. Only in America.

(I know this wasn't in response to me, but...) I certainly don't think it's deliberate. However, when things like swiping the home screen and sending text messages becomes slower -- things you could do well on the original iPhone -- one can only wonder.

You're not forced to upgrade. Up until last October my sister was using an iPhone 5 with iOS 6. Her iPad 2 is still running iOS 6. I can't believe for one second that iOS 9 runs worse on the 4S than iOS 8 did so how far would you let people revert back?

Perhaps "forced" is debatable, but often times you don't have a say in it. Need to restore the phone software? You'll only be permitted to get the latest version. There are circumstances where you don't have much of a choice. Even if you aren't forced, the device often harasses you until you do it and at that point, no matter what's happened, you're stuck.

How far back? I would say the original software that the device came with, or perhaps the latest minor revision of that major revision. I don't see how that's unfair.

Reverting back to iOS 6 on my old 4S made it run faster than my iPhone 6 on iOS 9. It doesn't run applications quite as quickly, but at all the OS-related stuff it's faster.

 

[adnbek]

"Relics"? You think so, seriously? My Mum and brother both still happily uses their iPhone 4, and nary a problem. I hardly think that - just because the brainwashed, consumer mentality masses upgrade perfectly working hardware EVERY SINGLE YEAR (or less), that this means that older phones are "relics". I'd possibly draw the line at the 3G S or 3G, but the 4S is s perfectly serviceable and working, decent iPhone for many people who have no utility nor desire for the supposedly "better" models.

There's then me, and I upgrade once every 6 months or less, because I am a "power user" I suppose, and I use whatever platform's latest mid-range phone because I like new toys, but I do not NEED them, not one bit of it. I've become accustomed to 5"+ phones (I own a ZTE phone with a 5.5" 1080p IPS and a Lumia 640 XL with a 5.7" 720p IPS) - do I absolutely NEED these? Nope, but I prefer a larger screen. Anyway, back to topic - to say they're "relics" is implied eltisim and tech snobbery - my Dad only JUST retired his Nokia 3310... call THAT a relic if you want, it is, but then his demands are different yet again... he needs calls, THAT IS IT.

Exaggerating by calling something a "relic" doesn't make it a relic, it simply means you're exaggerating by calling something a "relic"

Technologically speaking, they are relics. Unlike computers where the pace of advancement has slowed down, smartphones are still going through Moore's Law with performance almost doubling every year since 2007. If we were to use equivalent computer performance as a reference and using the current gen 6S as the baseline, a 4S is over 10 years older in computer years.

Which is crazy when you think about it. But at some point this'll slow down too as we reach technical limitations and we won't see the huge leaps in performance from year to year, and therefore they won't obsolete as quickly.

 

[NaughtOne]

This may shock some readers, but I really care how long a mobile device remains viable. Why? Because of the massive environmental impact of millions of people churning through smartphones. OS updates that render a device unstable or less convenient only shorten the life cycle, and create more waste.

Just to reduce waste on a global scale, the capability to revert OS levels should be a universal feature to all mobile devices. It might also reduce wasted legal resources.

 

[zhugzug]

Greed and stupidity at its finest, last I checked, yes you can try to install Windows 10 on a made for windows XP machine. BUT logic should tell you by now............. ITS GONNA RUN SLOW!

Judge should toss this case out and tell the plaintiff to stop being such a cry baby wine ass and pay apple's legal fee's for wasting their time.

 

[Kabeyun]

Don't post here again until Apple forces you to stay on Mavericks. You can go back to Leopard with no trouble.

So, you're saying the plaintiff was forced to upgrade to iOS 9? Just trying to divine your wisdom through your snideness.

 

[Spectrum]

I have an ipHone 4S that came with and is still running iOS7. It works great. What annoys me is the continual requests to install the latest version of iOS9. I know that if I do upgrade it will run like poo - AND I'll be unable to revert. This is the biggest thing for me: no way to test whether or not the degradation in performance is too much. And if it is, no way to go back. That is what needs to be fixed: a downgrade path.

 

[tbrinkma]

I wish my iPad 2 could go back to iOS 6. They literally destroyed the device forcing us to move to iOS 7 without the ability to go back. Biggest mistake I ever made was upgrading the iPad 2. Now it is a slow mess of crashes.

They "literally destroyed the device"? Did they run it through a wood chipper or something? Did they light it on fire? Crush it in a press? Smash it with a hammer?
How did they force you to move to iOS 7 after they "literally destroyed the device"? A gun to your head?

Or did you willingly upgrade to iOS 7, and now you're unhappy with it's performance so you're trying to put the blame for your actions on someone else? (Since you talk about still using the device that you claim was "literally destroyed".)