The proof is already there. Millions of iOS 6 users with no FaceTime or forced to update to iOS 7 and slow down their device making it inoperable forcing a new device purchase.
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.
Lawsuit Alleges Apple Broke FaceTime on iOS 6 to Force iOS 7 Upgrades, Save Money
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's not proof of malicious intent. The "proof" will be in the final verdict of the court case. Courts may very well side with Apple. (or not)
[doublepost=1486322538][/doublepost]
Sure, why not file a suit? As I just said, it will be up to the courts to decide the outcome. Could be for or against apple. Take your pick. All of what is posted are just opinions, with some posters providing perspective.
So much is wrong in your comments, but you already know that. The issue isn't as complicated as you make it out to be either.
Breaking FaceTime forcing upgrades to iOS did cost users in purchasing new installed software for iOS 7, or purchase new replacement devices because the update slowed down and was inoperable on some devices.
Downgrading for most customers is not only unknown but near impossible. It's not a simple one button tap option in the system, it requires expert knowledge. The fact that users can not downgrade after a very short period means many users are stuck with iOS 7 on devices that can not run it properly, forcing users to buy a new device if they want a hell-free user experience.
Apple could have easily paid the required fee to keep FaceTime working on iOS 6. Apple executives stiffed customers instead. Apple completely had a legal obligation to support FaceTime for the life of the device on iOS 6. FaceTime was heavily advertised as one of the hero features of iPad and iPhone during iOS 6 released in late 2012. Customers had a right to expect their device continued to work and not be subjected to malware written by Apple that killed features over time.
Last edited:
Again, this is up to the courts to decide, if they rule in favor of apple or not. But it's always good to hear the opinions of this.
I was originally affected by this debacle with my iOS 6.1.3 4S. The day I found out about it I was enraged! I would not update my phone just for this feature and, instead waited for the 6.x update to fix the facetime certificate for my archaic iPod Touch 4th gen. I always enjoyed the iOS 6 UI over the more modern one. Looking at it always put a smile on my face and, even though it was older, more outdated, and had some issues, I always preferred it.
I loved the old UI so much, I pounced on the oppertunity to create iOS 6 inspired shortcuts on my school loaned 7.1.2 iPad Air. I would have been able to do full replacements if I was allowed to jailbreak it
!
Ironically, to this day on my archaic iPod Touch 4th gen, Facetime still works. Even more curiously, I wonder what's the fix going to be if this case successfully wins.
I loved the old UI so much, I pounced on the oppertunity to create iOS 6 inspired shortcuts on my school loaned 7.1.2 iPad Air. I would have been able to do full replacements if I was allowed to jailbreak it
! Ironically, to this day on my archaic iPod Touch 4th gen, Facetime still works. Even more curiously, I wonder what's the fix going to be if this case successfully wins.
Attachments
And I didn't say that there wasn't an alleged conspiracy, simply that it's not really as exaggerated and sinister as some are trying to make it out to be. Come on now, you quote what I say and then still spin it into something else.
I had an iPhone 4s, my wife still has an iPhone 5, I also had an iPad 2 which is still in the family although it now belongs to a niece and we still have an iPad 3, or new iPad as they called it then. Each and every one of them started out sub IOS 6, and each one of them were updated to IOS 7 when it was released. Absolutely NONE of them was rendered unusable by IOS 7. IOS 7 was not my favorite OS, and it slowed down the older products. But we still own and use some of these items. Calling it unusable is at best a matter of opinion and at worst an outright lie.
As someone else keeps pointing out, the courts will decide. I really doubt that the courts will rule in favor of the plaintiffs. Regardless, your lack of sources, and the way you immediately turn to insults when someone disagrees with you means there isn't a way to discuss things with you.
Please don't try to discredit me. No insults being directed from here! No lies either. You got the wrong user, friend. Also. What sources are you after, I'd be happy to provide. I've only referred to devices and release dates, straightforward basic timeline stuff.
Ha! The point has been missed. iPhone 4s during its shelf availability shipped with iOS 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, so of course it ran iOS 7 without issue when upgrading, iPad 3 accepts iOS 9 as well etc.
The discussion is around older devices. Apple killed FaceTime on iOS 6 making those devices crippled on either option staying or upgrading. But users don't need to update if they don't wish to. Not updating doesn't give Apple license to kill highly marketed FaceTime software or coerce users to update. The fact that Apple killed switched FaceTime on iOS 6 is unacceptable alone it's despicable.
Time marches on technologically and whilst there maybe a scintilla of truth is said the courts will rule for Apple and that will be the end of this.
Last edited:
Or an appeal will invalidate the ruling and a new ruling will be made in favor of millions of customers burnt putting the issue to an end once and for all.
Watch this space.
Watch this space.
Or not, right? So no one know what will happen, but if it were me I would have upgraded. Wait, I did and have no regrets.
UPGRADES ARE NOT REALLY "FREE"
There's been a lot of posts in this thread, whose arguments rested upon the concept that "upgrades are free".
They're not. Each buyer pays upfront for X number years of upgrades as part of the device price. Thus Apple has actually charged billions of dollars for them. Here's the background:
--
Initially Apple accounted for both iPhone hardware and software on a subscription basis (*). This made investors crazy, since billions in hardware revenue were not being recognized right away.
Later, Apple switched to recognizing the hardware and software separately... with the hardware part being recognized immediately, and the software staying under subscription accounting.
For the software part, at first they set aside a straight $25 per iPhone for upgrades over two years. Later they began separating out three subtypes of software: stock code, upgrades, and extra services like cloud stuff.
--
By 2012, their SEC 10-K said they set aside $5 to $25 per iOS device sale for upgrades and services, and that the "Revenue allocated to such rights included with iOS devices and Apple TV is recognized on a straight-line basis over two years..."
That "two year" limit is why we didn't see upgrades for older devices. It's less about whether the hardware can do it or not, and more about whether it's been accounted for or not.
Recently they dropped the "two years" part, and now the period is unspecified, though the accounting method remains.
(*) Early iPod touch owners will remember that this was NOT true at first for that device. We had to pay $20 for an OS "upgrade"... to get features and apps which the iPhone already came with. Ouch.
There's been a lot of posts in this thread, whose arguments rested upon the concept that "upgrades are free".
They're not. Each buyer pays upfront for X number years of upgrades as part of the device price. Thus Apple has actually charged billions of dollars for them. Here's the background:
--
Initially Apple accounted for both iPhone hardware and software on a subscription basis (*). This made investors crazy, since billions in hardware revenue were not being recognized right away.
Later, Apple switched to recognizing the hardware and software separately... with the hardware part being recognized immediately, and the software staying under subscription accounting.
For the software part, at first they set aside a straight $25 per iPhone for upgrades over two years. Later they began separating out three subtypes of software: stock code, upgrades, and extra services like cloud stuff.
--
By 2012, their SEC 10-K said they set aside $5 to $25 per iOS device sale for upgrades and services, and that the "Revenue allocated to such rights included with iOS devices and Apple TV is recognized on a straight-line basis over two years..."
That "two year" limit is why we didn't see upgrades for older devices. It's less about whether the hardware can do it or not, and more about whether it's been accounted for or not.
Recently they dropped the "two years" part, and now the period is unspecified, though the accounting method remains.
(*) Early iPod touch owners will remember that this was NOT true at first for that device. We had to pay $20 for an OS "upgrade"... to get features and apps which the iPhone already came with. Ouch.
Last edited:
So my wife's iPhone 5, which was 4 years old when IOS 10 was released last fall, can't be running version 10 even though it says that is the OS that is installed, and ARS Technica is peddling bad information? https://arstechnica.com/apple/2016/09/good-news-ios-10-runs-pretty-well-on-the-iphone-5-and-5c/
Well, yes and no. 'Deprecate' is more often used in programming, and discussing features of a programming language, or API set.
Maybe my use of the word wasn't the best, but the example was appropriate. Apple doesn't have to support *every feature* of *every OS* in perpetuity. Imagine the mess... And, yes, why would anyone upgrade from System 7, if it were still supported. Some wouldn't really need it at all, yet others would want more features, but that's a bad analogy, taken to extreme.
Apple did it for cost, and it was money they felt they shouldn't have to spend. Were they wrong to do it? Hmm... If you broke up with a girlfriend/boyfriend, and you were paying for their cable, would you want to keep paying for that cable, months after breaking up? Would they, or should they, be able to sue you to keep paying for their cable? Hmm...
And yet PCs from 2009 still perform as good as the day they are bought. Tablets performance on the other hand comes crashing down with every major update
I regret the upgrade . Trashed my iPad Mini. Sold it off to get a Android tablet at a lesser price than what the Mini got me and yet was still faster . With so many cases being filed on this forced BS, Apple will hopefully lose at least one
I can't speak for home PC's, because what I run on my computers at home is not taxing, but a 2 year old computer at my work is barely acceptable performance wise, and an 7-8 year old one could not run the software I need to use. I program logic controllers and HMI's (Human Machine Interfaces) for industrial production machines and customers want the newer features that only very recent software has. A 4 year old computer might as well have Windows 3.1 loaded on it and a Pentium processor for all the good it would do me.
Moving goalposts. This is not about Microsoft. However, Microsoft forced me to upgrade when they discontinued support of XP.
[doublepost=1486354083][/doublepost]
Are you part of the class action? Hope has nothing to do with this; the court system has everything to do with the verdict.
That's because windows desktop really hasn't changed or added new features since XP; other than to build in 64 bit. It's basically the same old, same old with a fresh coat of paint; which is why it basically performs the same. Some services are now delayed on startup. Intel chips also are able to absorb more in terms of workload and not bog down as they are not as finely tuned to operating on a battery.
Server versions are in a different category.
But don't let facts get in the way of your hyperbole:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2951...-windows-10-the-answer-will-surprise-you.html
IOS has added thousands of new features since IOS 6 and the O/S is substantially different.
Wrong analogy.
In this case, it wasn't the GF (Akamai) suing the BF (Apple). Rather, it's their children (consumers), or whatever you want to call it, taking lawsuit against Apple.
Again, Apple is free to switch the server from Akamai to one of its own, but not at the detriment of the consumers.
Its been almost 12 years . Realistically you cant expect someone to support an OS forever. And they didn't force you to do anything, The option to downgrade to XP was always with you
It will take years before anything is decided and then there are appeals .....