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.
French Consumer Fraud Group Investigating Apple for 'Alleged Deception' and 'Planned Obsolescence'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It seems to me the question shouldn't be "intent" or "planned" etc. But rather did this code cause harm to customers in the first place. The battery replacements sounds like a good start but that code needs to go.
I just have to wonder why they keep selling these phones if they are so bad that they require this throttle code to run properly? Its too late to worry about my 6S but it's really killed the joy I had for my iPhone 8.
I just have to wonder why they keep selling these phones if they are so bad that they require this throttle code to run properly? Its too late to worry about my 6S but it's really killed the joy I had for my iPhone 8.
Correct. An opinion is an opinion not a fact.
The insane thing here is.
Everyone who has posted here really has no idea. We want to believe what we want. Doesn’t matter if it’s wrong or right. Why? Who knows
But Apple is out of line here.
Everyone who has posted here really has no idea. We want to believe what we want. Doesn’t matter if it’s wrong or right. Why? Who knows
But Apple is out of line here.
Better off investigating the lack of updates for new android hardware in my opinion.
[doublepost=1516025384][/doublepost]
Are these American law firms per chance ?
[doublepost=1516025384][/doublepost]
Are these American law firms per chance ?
Better off investigating the lack of updates for new android hardware in my opinion.
[doublepost=1516025384][/doublepost]
Are these American law firms per chance ?
Many are, but also many across Europe, including the entire country of France.
The American govt, too.
House lawmakers have asked Apple to answer more questions about the battery performance of its smartphones. (Reuters)
APPLE UNDER FIRE IN FRANCE FOR 'PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE,' COULD FACE BIG FINES
--Does Apple utilize processor performance throttling for iPhone models that predate the iPhone 6?
--When and how did Apple first become aware of the need to develop an iOS software update to address instantaneous phone shutdowns attributable to battery degradation?
--Aside from processor throttling, please describe the actions, if any, Apple is taking to remedy instantaneous iPhone shutdowns attributable to battery degradation;
House lawmakers have asked Apple to answer more questions about the battery performance of its smartphones. (Reuters)
How often in the average day of the average user does this "planned obsolescence" actually happen then ? Please Apple can I have my 9 seconds of throttling back ? Out of interest do apple get sued a lot by consumer groups, governments, loonies ? Do they pay out a lot then ?
Just ONE of the firms suing Apple, recently got a 450m settlement from Apple, for their ebook pricing fraud. There are now over 34 pending litigations for the throttling.
And people think I’m crazy when I say they will pay billions of dollars for this...lol...
[SARCASM]
Yep, because Apple's throttling is sued and investigated worldwide at the moment, the whole world must consist of loonies right? Assuming Apple can do anything wrong is already a loony thought in itself...
[/SARCASM]
Last edited:
Under French law, it is a crime to deliberately shorten the lifespan of products to make consumers buy new ones. Executives caught violating the law can face prison sentences of up to two years, and their companies can be fined up to five percent of their annual sales.
"At more than €1,200 per phone, these practices are unacceptable and cannot go unpunished. It is our mission to defend consumers and the environment", said Laetitia Vasseur, co-founder of the consumer group.
"At more than €1,200 per phone, these practices are unacceptable and cannot go unpunished. It is our mission to defend consumers and the environment", said Laetitia Vasseur, co-founder of the consumer group.
If anything, all indication points to the opposite of what you just said.
I am totally expecting you to reply with "my 5s runs great! Hence, no planned obsolescence."
I don't think we need Law and Order in society if those guilty simply admitted their guilt.
For one year(until they were caught red handed), Apple thought it was in your best interest to hide the fact that your battery was failing and that you were being throttled. Batteries are replaceable by public.
The issue was lack of transparency, not nefariousness. They should replace all under-warranty batteries if they are defective (and they are probably doing that already). They also have been replacing 6s batteries that were defective whether they were in warranty or not.
But sometimes, even the innocent go to jail.
Some call it 'lack of transparency', some will call it 'planned obsolescence'. Depends on which side you look from... the side that was throttled, or the side with unthrottled phones. Our CPU was throttled 30%, so do we have defective batteries that we used for two years without any issues?
This whole thing is fishy and I hope those lawyers hoping for a billion dollar payout do their work/research.
My opinion, is apple is not out to purposefully screw their customers. If they were, there would, imo, be much better and sneakier ways of doing so to aggravate us so that we either: 1) purchase a new device or 2) move to a competitor. Doing it in such a clumsy manner is very un-apple like. Therefore, my take on this is not nefariousness.
But there are those who staunchly believe Apple has a "planned obsolescence" strategy.
I think Apple saw an opportunity with fixing the 6S batteries shutdowns problems. They applied the fix to all older phone models once new models were released under the guise of 'battery issues' if questioned. I think that is what happened here.
The fact that suits are in existence at all, even if only preliminarily, should give one doubt about any outcome.
I don't think it's likely that an objective, supportive to Apple report entered as evidence will be accepted by the crowd and complainants if it doesn't confirm their sentiment. Even if such a supportive report (along with Apple's SLA, etc.) were deemed as relevant evidence in a, or each, legal proceeding, there's no certainty that it would be intellectually accepted and then be used to objectively apply the law. If the suits go forward, the decision making will be done by judges; many are little more than berobed, wannabe super-legislators. Although Apple is philosophically simpatico with those who hold that type of philosopher-king thinking, there are differences at the margins, such as in tax policy.
It's likely that there's a non-objective elastic law in some jurisdiction that can sort of be, or can be stretched to be, used against Apple regardless of any evidence. I've not read the complete text of France's planned obsolescence law; have only read reported excerpts. My early understanding of it–it's not a friend of property rights; they are thought to be subservient to the collective.
There's also the possibility that Apple will settle in such a way as to satisfy (until the next time) complainants and the legal overlords. Apple knows that its wealth accumulation cushion, to some extent, protects it for the indeterminate future from any precedent that may be set; I'm not sure that it'll be concerned with any precedent's consequence on others. Seemingly bad outcomes for large, established entities can conversely benefit them. They survive, yet a smaller entity, whether they be a direct or indirect competitor, is irreparably harmed or never started because of the precedent's existence. (This is in addition to the parent law's existing exclusionary effect.)
It's difficult to be confident that an objective decision will be the outcome with this case(s) when the political-legal landscape is taken into consideration. If Apple suffers a legal loss, the philosophical fundamentals that will be used against it are what it's been advocating for, for quite some time.
I don't think it's likely that an objective, supportive to Apple report entered as evidence will be accepted by the crowd and complainants if it doesn't confirm their sentiment. Even if such a supportive report (along with Apple's SLA, etc.) were deemed as relevant evidence in a, or each, legal proceeding, there's no certainty that it would be intellectually accepted and then be used to objectively apply the law. If the suits go forward, the decision making will be done by judges; many are little more than berobed, wannabe super-legislators. Although Apple is philosophically simpatico with those who hold that type of philosopher-king thinking, there are differences at the margins, such as in tax policy.
It's likely that there's a non-objective elastic law in some jurisdiction that can sort of be, or can be stretched to be, used against Apple regardless of any evidence. I've not read the complete text of France's planned obsolescence law; have only read reported excerpts. My early understanding of it–it's not a friend of property rights; they are thought to be subservient to the collective.
There's also the possibility that Apple will settle in such a way as to satisfy (until the next time) complainants and the legal overlords. Apple knows that its wealth accumulation cushion, to some extent, protects it for the indeterminate future from any precedent that may be set; I'm not sure that it'll be concerned with any precedent's consequence on others. Seemingly bad outcomes for large, established entities can conversely benefit them. They survive, yet a smaller entity, whether they be a direct or indirect competitor, is irreparably harmed or never started because of the precedent's existence. (This is in addition to the parent law's existing exclusionary effect.)
It's difficult to be confident that an objective decision will be the outcome with this case(s) when the political-legal landscape is taken into consideration. If Apple suffers a legal loss, the philosophical fundamentals that will be used against it are what it's been advocating for, for quite some time.
Okay, I had to read that twice.
The thing is, so many are invested in Apple. Either indirectly as consumers or directly as investors holding AAPL stock. If lawsuits fail, it could be due to how big of a company Apple is.
Last edited:
I would love to keep the original iOS that came either with my iPhone, iPad or Apple Watch ... but I can't. Now and then, devices are wiped and factory restored for a number of reasons. Now, how do I install the original iOS to the device a few years later? I can't. I have to install whatever iOS Apple allows me to be installed on my device.