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.
UK Legal Action Seeks Damages for 25 Million iPhone Users Over 'Throttling' Devices With Degraded Batteries
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I remember my 5 would die routinely at 20% life left. I thought it was because I had it in my front jacket pocket snowboarding.
Can we get some of that payout on the other side of 'the Pond', please?
Inevitable someone is going to sue because their device/battery is old.
A UK consumer champion has launched a £750 million ($907 million) legal claim against Apple over the 2017 iPhone throttling controversy that saw a software update effectively slow down older devices (via The Guardian).
Market researcher Justin Gutmann has filed the claim with the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal seeking the damages for up to 25 million UK owners of a range of older iPhone models affected by the update.
The claim relates to Apple's introduction of power management features for older iPhones to prevent unexpected shutdowns during times of peak power draw on devices with degraded batteries. These power management features throttle the processor on older iPhones with less than optimal batteries, resulting in slower performance.
Gutman claims that Apple introduced the features to disguise the fact that iPhone batteries were unable to cope with new iOS processing demands and that rather than recall products or replace batteries, Apple instead pushed users to download the software updates.
Though introduced early in 2017, the power management features were not widely publicized until late 2017, leading many customers to feel deceived by Apple.
Apple apologized the same year for not better explaining how battery health could impact performance. It has since implemented a policy offering low-price no-questions-asked battery replacements for out-of-warranty devices.
In 2020, the company also agreed to pay up to $500 million to settle a long-running class action lawsuit in the United States that accused the company of "secretly throttling" older iPhone models. Apple has faced similar lawsuits in Belgium, Chile, Spain, Italy, and Portugal.
Gutman's claim relates to the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6S, 6S Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus and iPhone X models. It seeks compensation for each model owned and is an opt-out claim, meaning customers will not need to actively join the case to seek damages.
Commenting on the claim, Apple told The Guardian: "We have never, and would never, do anything to … degrade the user experience to drive customer upgrades.
"Our goal has always been to create products that our customers love, and making iPhones last as long as possible is an important part of that."
Article Link: UK Legal Action Seeks Damages for 25 Million iPhone Users Over 'Throttling' Devices With Degraded Batteries
Always something to complain about.
"My device didn't get the update"
"My device got the update, but now it is slow"
What about getting a new phone every 2-4 years?
"too much!"? Service over 4 years @ $45/month = $2,160 for service over 48 months What is an extra $300-500 ($10/month)? (even low enough for someone making nearly $18/hr in fast food).
I suppose that depends on how someone wants to apply the term "quality" here. If a battery is unable to meet performance needs or expectations, it could be due to or considered a (low) quality issue.
From the article:
Gutman claims that Apple introduced the features to disguise the fact that iPhone batteries were unable to cope with new iOS processing demands and that rather than recall products or replace batteries, Apple instead pushed users to download the software updates.
That would suggest that a higher quality battery wouldn’t have any problems. Do we know if that is the case? Or would any battery, regardless of quality, cause the same problem?
The key here was that these were less than 2 year old phones, and at the time Apple would refuse to replace the battery if THEIR diagnostics said the batteries had more then 80% battery life. And yet, these same "fine" batteries weren't good enough to keep up with the demands of the phone.
This was not a normal situation. This was a problem they were forcing on not very old phones with the ONLY solution being to buy a new phone. Again, that was the ONLY solution for phones LESS THAN TWO YEARS OLD.
The other solution was the one that they implemented only AFTER the backlash from the hidden throttling being exposed -- let people buy new batteries whenever they wanted to, instead of having to buy a new phone.
I don't know but would assume that for a price, a battery could've been made to meet the performance needs/expectations of what were still relatively new devices. The "quality" of these batteries didn’t meet that benchmark and therefore could be considered "low quality" relative to the needs.
Any evidence for this other than simply thinking that spending more money solves the problem?
Well yes, a phone that was now intentionally throttled and made to perform slower than the original performance because of the poor battery life. Again, a battery which they wouldn't let you replace.
Fine, but suggesting that replacing the phone was the only option was incorrect. Maybe people were happier having a phone that was slightly slower but didn’t randomly switch off? Have you considered that scenario (which is what the software was designed to fix)?
As I said at the start of my first sentence, "I don't know...." but if the batteries were unable to handle the new iOS processing demands then they we of a lower quality than what was needed to meet the task.
The batteries were able to handle the power demands of the processor but not when the batteries were degraded. This is why a new battery would restore the device to full performance.
Yes, and that can also speak to quality issues if batteries degraded at an unreasonable pace and prevented relatively new devices from performing at an expected level.
And I believe Apple have always replaced batteries under warranty if they have degraded to below 80% within the warranty period. Beyond that, you are on your own.
Perhaps but that still doesn't mean there weren't quality issues with the batteries. Hopefully more information and details will come out as this claim moves forward.
But why did it randomly switch off? Oh yeah, because the batteries couldn't handle the load.
The batteries they wouldn't let you replace if their diagnostic said it was over 80%, even though I was experiencing the random shut-downs.
Yes the degraded batteries couldn’t handle the load. Hence a new battery restored performance. I agree Apple should have replaced those batteries.
While I totally understand why people would be angry that their devices were slowed down without their permission.... I do find it hard to reconcile how they would have preferred to have a phone that didn't last all day and probably leave them stranded versus one that was slightly slower and kept them connected.