French Consumer Fraud Group Investigating Apple for 'Alleged Deception' and 'Planned Obsolescence'

[deferredAnon]

OK, so that's fair, this is poorly written power management software. Main thing I'm disagreeing with is the people saying this is some master plan to force people to buy new phones.

We will wait for that decision to be made in various courts.

 

[Phonephreak]

OK, so that's fair, this is poorly written power management software. Main thing I'm disagreeing with is the people saying this is some master plan to force people to buy new phones.

I don’t think Apple has this evil plan but there is something going on. Apple hasn’t really been forthcoming about it. They reacted with the $29 battery replacement. I also think that this is just getting started. Once social media gets hold of something all bet are off.

 

[I7guy]

I’m not saying they are identical. But still The battery should supply the stated power continuously until it is depleted. Their shouldn’t be voltage drops in a lithium battery until it is draining almost entirely.
.

Unless the battery is old, abused (hot/cold) or past it's useful service interval. Some batteries may be defective as well, as in my 6s and would decline at a faster rate than non-defective batteries. Those batteries still under warranty should be replaced (for free).

 

[Norbs12]

We will wait for that decision to be made in various courts.

Yes, because lawyers that are paid to win and judges that don't understand tech are the best at judging tech. /s

 

[aevan]

i never claimed planned obsolescence. I think Apple just has to admit their mistake. They should recall these defective battery’s. Replace them for free and move on.

But they did.

1. They admitted their mistake for not telling their customers what was going on and apologized
2. There is a free replacement program for faulty 6S batteries (not sure about 6)

 

[Phonephreak]

But they did.

1. They admitted their mistake for not telling their customers what was going on and apologized
2. There is a free replacement program for faulty 6S batteries (not sure about 6)

Ok I now realize we will never see eye to eye. You will unwaveringly defend Apple. I will look at the whole picture and say hmmmm. Thanks for the chat.
[doublepost=1515751633][/doublepost]

Unless the battery is old, abused (hot/cold) or past it's useful service interval. Some batteries may be defective as well, as in my 6s and would decline at a faster rate than non-defective batteries. Those batteries still under warranty should be replaced (for free).

So all these battery’s are past their useful service life? Have a great day.

 

[I7guy]

So all these battery’s are past their useful service life? Have a great day.

As is my laptop battery. Have a great day as well.

 

[Ploki]

It's planned obsolescence because it FORCES you to buy a new laptop... ACTUALLY SCREW IT. I'm not responding to you, if you really need to ask such a ridiculous question you're either trolling or incredibly uninformed.

Don't be ridiculous, 2012 models were limited to 16GB by chipset, and it was as much as apple offered. And RAM is not the only thing that's affecting performance of a laptop.
Right now, 32GB of ram in my 2012 Retina wouldn't do squat. What would is a 3000mb/s ssd as opposed to 500mb/s I have now.
What also would is 8 cores vs 4 cores.

all of which need a new mother board.

And RAM quantity is not the only thing either - RAM speed is as well.

And even if you DO run out of ram, if your page file is at 3000mb/s instead of 500mb/s its a big difference.

I building my own box PCs since i was 12 years old, I regularly swapped CPU, RAM, drives, what not.

Computing CHANGED. If you max out your RAM when you buy it, after 5 years, RAM will be the least of your concerns... - on a laptop. and afaik, all desktops still have interchangable RAM modules.

The only thing about soldered ram is that it was CHEAP to swap for 3rd party - this is the main and only reasons people were pissed. They bought cheap with little RAM and bought 3rd party - routinely buying NEW with aftermarket RAM on the same receipt.

So lets stop pretending soldered RAM is about anything else than saving 200$.

 

[Phonephreak]

Don't be ridiculous, 2012 models were limited to 16GB by chipset, and it was as much as apple offered. And RAM is not the only thing that's affecting performance of a laptop.
Right now, 32GB of ram in my 2012 Retina wouldn't do squat. What would is a 3000mb/s ssd as opposed to 500mb/s I have now.
What also would is 8 cores vs 4 cores.

all of which need a new mother board.

And RAM quantity is not the only thing either - RAM speed is as well.

And even if you DO run out of ram, if your page file is at 3000mb/s instead of 500mb/s its a big difference.

I building my own box PCs since i was 12 years old, I regularly swapped CPU, RAM, drives, what not.

Computing CHANGED. If you max out your RAM when you buy it, after 5 years, RAM will be the least of your concerns... - on a laptop. and afaik, all desktops still have interchangable RAM modules.

The only thing about soldered ram is that it was CHEAP to swap for 3rd party - this is the main and only reasons people were pissed. They bought cheap with little RAM and bought 3rd party - routinely buying NEW with aftermarket RAM on the same receipt.

So lets stop pretending soldered RAM is about anything else than saving 200$.

Rant off

 

[bladerunner2000]

Don't be ridiculous, 2012 models were limited to 16GB by chipset, and it was as much as apple offered. And RAM is not the only thing that's affecting performance of a laptop.
Right now, 32GB of ram in my 2012 Retina wouldn't do squat. What would is a 3000mb/s ssd as opposed to 500mb/s I have now.
What also would is 8 cores vs 4 cores.

all of which need a new mother board.

And RAM quantity is not the only thing either - RAM speed is as well.

And even if you DO run out of ram, if your page file is at 3000mb/s instead of 500mb/s its a big difference.

I building my own box PCs since i was 12 years old, I regularly swapped CPU, RAM, drives, what not.

Computing CHANGED. If you max out your RAM when you buy it, after 5 years, RAM will be the least of your concerns... - on a laptop. and afaik, all desktops still have interchangable RAM modules.

The only thing about soldered ram is that it was CHEAP to swap for 3rd party - this is the main and only reasons people were pissed. They bought cheap with little RAM and bought 3rd party - routinely buying NEW with aftermarket RAM on the same receipt.

So lets stop pretending soldered RAM is about anything else than saving 200$.

Yeah, and I was able to upgrade back then to the maximum amount capable. Not to mention all the other components inside that i can swap at will (the HD failed on me). But hey, seems like you want to promote disposable laptops.

 

[Ploki]

Yeah, and I was able to upgrade back then to the maximum amount capable. Not to mention all the other components inside that i can swap at will (the HD failed on me). But hey, seems like you want to promote disposable laptops.

My SSD on my macbook didn't fail me, and i'd be happy to see failure rates on these.
Battery did (and I'm getting a free replacement on a 5y old laptop!) and screen did (and I also got a free replacement).

And there's literally nothing in the 2016 model that would make me upgrade - because everything that failed got replaced, and the only thing significantly better is GPU and SSD speed and external bandwidth - all of which I couldn't upgrade on my old chipset even if i wanted to because the motherboard simply doesn't support it.

To be honest, if you want to argue for repairability, Apple has a much worse track record with failing GPUs than failing SSDs and failing RAM...

There's literally no argument for replacable RAM other than that you want to get it cheaper, which is a non-argument altogether. Because repairability argument stands for CPU and especially GPU as well.

My laptop after 5 years is not disposable, it has plenty of juice in it + a FREE topcase AND lid replacement (new exterior completely, and completely for free). I can't say the same for my 2008 macbook pro on which i could upgrade both RAM and HDD (and even replaced optical with HDD), but by 2012 was barely usable because of underpowered CPU, crap SATA2 controller in optical bay and 8GB chipset RAM limit, and absolute crap external connectivity... (and running on 3rd battery by them because they have swollen).

2012 MBPr is still running hard and strong, not to mention still fairly competitive throughput of USB3.0 and TB2.

So I really don't see where the disposability comes in. I don't have the soldered SSD, but in my eyes, the 2012 soldered RAM retina macbooks are less disposable then old machines, RAM upgrade or not. Buy as much as possible when buying new and by the time RAM is not enough, everything else will be dated as well, controllers, interfaces, CPU...

 

[Bawstun]

Nope, not going to happen.

Nope, not going to happen.

Willing to reconsider, yet?

Apple now faces a total of 32 class action lawsuits in the US for slowing down iPhones with older batteries without telling users.

As reported by Patently Apple, this week alone five US law firms filed separate iPhone slowdown class actions, including one from Hagens Berman, the firm behind the case that ended with Apple paying a $450m settlement over ebook price fixing.

One of two suits filed on Wednesday in San Jose cites six causes of action, including fraudulent conduct, unfair conduct, trespass to chattels, breach of implied duty, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

As a direct and proximate result of Apple's interference with their iPhones, plaintiffs and the class suffered injury, including that their iPhones suffered a permanent and long-term degradation in performance, utility, condition, quality, and value. As a result, plaintiffs and/or class members were required and induced to purchase new iPhones and/or new batteries to their detriment and Apple's benefit."

Several other lawsuits similarly argue that Apple's updates amounted to this trespass to chattels.

"Defendant Apple intentionally interfered with, and committed trespass to, plaintiff's and putative class members' property, ie, their iPhones, by installing performance-throttling software on their phones without their knowledge," Hagens Berman writes in its suit.


"To reiterate: because Apple did not inform them of, or seek their consent to installation of, performance-throttling software when presenting them with the iOS 10.2.1 or 11.2 updates, or both of them, plaintiff and the putative class members did not consent to Apple's interference."
[doublepost=1515903733][/doublepost]To be sure: they will lose all 32 suits.

 

[rafark]

Willing to reconsider, yet?

Apple now faces a total of 32 class action lawsuits in the US for slowing down iPhones with older batteries without telling users.

As reported by Patently Apple, this week alone five US law firms filed separate iPhone slowdown class actions, including one from Hagens Berman, the firm behind the case that ended with Apple paying a $450m settlement over ebook price fixing.

One of two suits filed on Wednesday in San Jose cites six causes of action, including fraudulent conduct, unfair conduct, trespass to chattels, breach of implied duty, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

As a direct and proximate result of Apple's interference with their iPhones, plaintiffs and the class suffered injury, including that their iPhones suffered a permanent and long-term degradation in performance, utility, condition, quality, and value. As a result, plaintiffs and/or class members were required and induced to purchase new iPhones and/or new batteries to their detriment and Apple's benefit."

Several other lawsuits similarly argue that Apple's updates amounted to this trespass to chattels.

"Defendant Apple intentionally interfered with, and committed trespass to, plaintiff's and putative class members' property, ie, their iPhones, by installing performance-throttling software on their phones without their knowledge," Hagens Berman writes in its suit.


"To reiterate: because Apple did not inform them of, or seek their consent to installation of, performance-throttling software when presenting them with the iOS 10.2.1 or 11.2 updates, or both of them, plaintiff and the putative class members did not consent to Apple's interference."
[doublepost=1515903733][/doublepost]To be sure: they will lose all 32 suits.

If they just lose at least one it will put Apple in serious trouble as pretty much anyone with an iPhone could use the argument from that case to sue them. Things can get out of control.

 

[justperry]

Willing to reconsider, yet?

Apple now faces a total of 32 class action lawsuits in the US for slowing down iPhones with older batteries without telling users.

As reported by Patently Apple, this week alone five US law firms filed separate iPhone slowdown class actions, including one from Hagens Berman, the firm behind the case that ended with Apple paying a $450m settlement over ebook price fixing.

One of two suits filed on Wednesday in San Jose cites six causes of action, including fraudulent conduct, unfair conduct, trespass to chattels, breach of implied duty, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

As a direct and proximate result of Apple's interference with their iPhones, plaintiffs and the class suffered injury, including that their iPhones suffered a permanent and long-term degradation in performance, utility, condition, quality, and value. As a result, plaintiffs and/or class members were required and induced to purchase new iPhones and/or new batteries to their detriment and Apple's benefit."

Several other lawsuits similarly argue that Apple's updates amounted to this trespass to chattels.

"Defendant Apple intentionally interfered with, and committed trespass to, plaintiff's and putative class members' property, ie, their iPhones, by installing performance-throttling software on their phones without their knowledge," Hagens Berman writes in its suit.


"To reiterate: because Apple did not inform them of, or seek their consent to installation of, performance-throttling software when presenting them with the iOS 10.2.1 or 11.2 updates, or both of them, plaintiff and the putative class members did not consent to Apple's interference."
[doublepost=1515903733][/doublepost]To be sure: they will lose all 32 suits.

Save yourself from writing a long reply, just because they face 32 class action lawsuits means absolutely nothing, lets wait and see what happens before your conclusion Apple will loose them all, they won't for the simple fact that Apple can simply prove all batteries degrade overtime and Apple mobile phones are not the only ones shutting down or getting slower after batteries degrade.

 

[Phonephreak]

While I agree that Apple is WRONG here. Just because someone file a lawsuit doesn’t mean much. I can file a suit against you for just about anything. Will I win????????

What I hope happens here is that Apple learns a expensive lesson, battery’s are replaced on all 6,6s. Apple will easily recoup this hit within the year. Transparency with your customers and users is of utmost importance. They now understand that.

Most importantly is that it wakes Apple the hell up. Please make function the priority again. Not how damn thin the phone is. I mean if a 2 credit card thicker phone gave you 2 days of battery. A real 2 days, actually using the phone. Who knows. I would really enjoy seeing what happen. Maybe the XsMax. I’d buy that model.

Try it. They will know what their users want very quickly. Then adjust the product line. Im sure the most successful company ever could manage this. Who knows it may even produce larger profits.

Willing to reconsider, yet?

Apple now faces a total of 32 class action lawsuits in the US for slowing down iPhones with older batteries without telling users.

As reported by Patently Apple, this week alone five US law firms filed separate iPhone slowdown class actions, including one from Hagens Berman, the firm behind the case that ended with Apple paying a $450m settlement over ebook price fixing.

One of two suits filed on Wednesday in San Jose cites six causes of action, including fraudulent conduct, unfair conduct, trespass to chattels, breach of implied duty, and breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

As a direct and proximate result of Apple's interference with their iPhones, plaintiffs and the class suffered injury, including that their iPhones suffered a permanent and long-term degradation in performance, utility, condition, quality, and value. As a result, plaintiffs and/or class members were required and induced to purchase new iPhones and/or new batteries to their detriment and Apple's benefit."

Several other lawsuits similarly argue that Apple's updates amounted to this trespass to chattels.

"Defendant Apple intentionally interfered with, and committed trespass to, plaintiff's and putative class members' property, ie, their iPhones, by installing performance-throttling software on their phones without their knowledge," Hagens Berman writes in its suit.


"To reiterate: because Apple did not inform them of, or seek their consent to installation of, performance-throttling software when presenting them with the iOS 10.2.1 or 11.2 updates, or both of them, plaintiff and the putative class members did not consent to Apple's interference."
[doublepost=1515903733][/doublepost]To be sure: they will lose all 32 suits.

 

[justperry]

While I agree that Apple is WRONG here. Just because someone file a lawsuit doesn’t mean much. I can file a suit against you for just about anything. Will I win????????

What I hope happens here is that Apple learns a expensive lesson, battery’s are replaced on all 6,6s. Apple will easily recoup this hit within the year. Transparency with your customers and users is of utmost importance. They now understand that.

Most importantly is that it wakes Apple the hell up. Please make function the priority again. Not how damn thin the phone is. I mean if a 2 credit card thicker phone gave you 2 days of battery. A real 2 days, actually using the phone. Who knows. I would really enjoy seeing what happen. Maybe the XsMax. I’d buy that model.

Try it. They will know what their users want very quickly. Then adjust the product line. Im sure the most successful company ever could manage this. Who knows it may even produce larger profits.

Bold: Exactly.

 

[Phonephreak]

Bold: Exactly.

I also think that Apple will be recalling battery’s. I may be wrong, but this isn’t going anywhere soon. Apple has its PR nightmare.

It really doesn’t affect me any more. My sons battery has been replaced and phone is back to spec. I would love my $29 back though. Time will tell

I will admit that I am thinking about leaving the Apple eco system over this. They lost credibility over this. Have they learned a lesson? I’m just really invested in apples eco system at this time. Besides I need to think if I want to lose my Apple Watch. I really love it.

 

[justperry]

I also think that Apple will be recalling battery’s. I may be wrong, but this isn’t going anywhere soon. Apple has its PR nightmare.

It really doesn’t affect me any more. My sons battery has been replaced and phone is back to spec. I would love my $29 back though. Time will tell

I will admit that I am thinking about leaving the Apple eco system over this. They lost credibility over this. Have they learned a lesson? I’m just really invested in apples eco system at this time. Besides I need to think if I want to lose my Apple Watch. I really love it.

There's not one single company not making mistakes, yes, Apple should have communicated better, that's their single mistake regarding this 'issue'.
People demand faster and thinner devices, batteries are no up to that task anymore, fact is, we need better/newer batteries (technology).

 

[Phonephreak]

There's not one single company not making mistakes, yes, Apple should have communicated better, that's their single mistake regarding this 'issue'.
People demand faster and thinner devices, batteries are no up to that task anymore, fact is, we need better/newer batteries (technology).

I absolutely agree. Company’s make mistakes all the time.

Apple handled this problem like the handle all problems. Deny it then back track and start a repair program due to threat a lawsuits. So they handled it pretty poorly imo.

This is the thing that I don’t understand. People defend Apple with almost a religious conviction. Even when they are clearly in the wrong. They are wrong here imo. But this isn’t the first PR issue Apple has dealt with. I hope this problem is going to wake Apple up to the fact to the public is fickle and there are competitors out there. They are not guaranteed phone sales

People demand faster more powerful phones. I have never heard one person, other than here, want, let alone demand a thinner phone.

Again. Time will tell.

Edit:

I agree completely about battery’s. We need new battery tech

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

There's not one single company not making mistakes, yes, Apple should have communicated better, that's their single mistake regarding this 'issue'.

You are right, but this is not about communicating better. This is about willfully hiding important issues from the users. The courts have to decide how severe that is and if it is planned obsolescence or not. If other companies make 'mistakes' like that they must be held responsible too.

People demand faster and thinner devices

No, they don't. Not at any cost.

batteries are no up to that task anymore

Yes they are up to that task. Just not in ridiculously thin phones.

fact is, we need better/newer batteries (technology)

No. Just bigger batteries instead of making the phone thinner.

 

[justperry]

You are right, but this is not about communicating better. This is about willfully hiding important issues from the users. The courts have to decide how severe that is and if it is planned obsolescence or not. If other companies make 'mistakes' like that they must be held responsible too.


No, they don't. Not at any cost.


Yes they are up to that task. Just not in ridiculously thin phones.


No. Just bigger batteries instead of making the phone thinner.

Bigger batteries does not necessarily mean it can deliver higher currents.

'You' don't want a heavier iPhone, at least I don't want.

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

Bigger batteries does not necessarily mean it can deliver higher currents.

No, but it means they last longer.

'You' don't want a heavier iPhone, at least I don't want.

I did not say that. I said: Users don't want thinner phones at any cost. If the average user has the choice between a very thin phone with a battery lasting no more then a year or a slightly thicker phone with a battery lasting for 2 to 3 years, what do you think the average user will choose?

There are other brands capable of making thin phones with longer lasting batteries than Apple does. So why wouldn't it technically be possible for Apple phones? Seems like a 'form over function' problem to me.

 

[justperry]

No, but it means they last longer.

As in, longer lasting/more load cycles or as in 1 charge takes you further, like 20 hours instead of 15 hours?

If it's the second one it will get the same problem as we have now, if its the first one you might be right cause a battery degrades less if it can be charged 1000 X instead of 500 times.

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

No, but it means they last longer.

As in, longer lasting/more load cycles or as in 1 charge takes you further, like 20 hours instead of 15 hours?

If it's the second one it will get the same problem as we have now, if its the first one you might be right cause a battery degrades less if it can be charged 1000 X instead of 500 times.

Just read my answer before this one. I don't want to turn this into word nitpicking. Of course I mean more load cycles when I say 'they last longer'. The other option would be pointless.

 

[justperry]

I did not say that. I said: Users don't want thinner phones at any cost. If the average user has the choice between a very thin phone with a battery lasting no more then a year or a slightly thicker phone with a battery lasting for 2 to 3 years, what do you think the average user will choose?

There are other brands capable of making thin phones with longer lasting batteries than Apple phones. So why wouldn't it technically be possible with Apple phones? Seems like a 'form over function' problem to me.

I am not saying Apple used cheaper/lower quality batteries, they might, if that is the case then they need a kick in the behind.

Might be TC's stinginess.


[/doublepost]

Just read my answer before this one. I don't want to turn this into word nitpicking. It should be clear what I mean. Of course I mean more life cycles when I say 'It last's longer'.

No, that was a genuine question.