Apple face 2 class action suits in USA over slowing down iPhones

[leadeater]

2 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

Windows itself will tell you that you need to replace the battery since Vista was a thing. I know windows 7 did it for sure since I had like 4 faulty batteries with a laptop I bought in my first year of college.

Interesting, hardly use laptops now days. I don't think I've turned mine on in 2 years so the battery is likely totally dead from sitting in a discharged state for that time.

[mr moose]

11 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Ahahah

 

You never even read the statement Apple released on this issue and are actually commenting about it 

 

Oh man that's a doozey 

Oh man hahahahah doozy ...         yes I did.

 

 

[XenosTech]

Just now, leadeater said:

Interesting, hardly use laptops now days. I don't think I've turned my on in 2 years so the battery is likely totally dead from sitting in a discharged state for that time.

Better give it some juice lol. I have about 7 phone batteries in my fridge just chilling at half capacity for phones I no longer have lol

[DrMacintosh]

Just now, mr moose said:

yes I did.

You wouldn't mind providing the section in which Apple explained why they are doing this then?

[mr moose]

23 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

You wouldn't mind providing the section in which Apple explained why they are doing this then?

Quote

 

"Our goal is to deliver the best experience for customers, which includes overall performance and prolonging the life of their devices. Lithium-ion batteries become less capable of supplying peak current demands when in cold conditions, have a low battery charge or as they age over time, which can result in the device unexpectedly shutting down to protect its electronic components.

Last year we released a feature for iPhone 6, iPhone 6s and iPhone SE to smooth out the instantaneous peaks only when needed to prevent the device from unexpectedly shutting down during these conditions. We've now extended that feature to iPhone 7 with iOS 11.2, and plan to add support for other products in the future."

 

 

If it has nothing to do with batteries becoming less capable over time, then why mention it at all?  Oh that's right, they mentioned it only after being caught out.

 

EDIT: of course the independent tests show this "feature" to be the cause of the performance drop, so the only way you could defend apple would be to claim Apple didn't know their update would do that.   I can't really buy that.

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

Well no Android phones in the past have ever had SoCs and powerful as Apples before. 

 

Now that they do however, I can already tell you that Android phones will and do turn off during normal use because of their batteries not outputting enough power. 

 

Unfortunately Android OEMs can't break the laws of physics. 

Apple is bound to the laws of physics as well. It is fairly well known that larger CPUs will have a higher power draw. That is an inescapable truth. 

 

The approach of using high burst clocks is a perfectly valid means of achieve performance, and may have been the primary avenue for Apple to achieve higher clocks on their wide architectures. Nvidia employs similar technique on their Maxwell and Pascal architectures, reducing average power consumption, but actually raising the max power consumption substantially on a millisecond level. Obviously, no one here can say for certain if this is what Apple does.

 

Requiring very high bursts of current, even if for a brief period, is relatively uncharted waters for standard smartphone batteries. Details are sparse though, and I admittedly find it hard to believe that a mobile phone can draw enough amps that this would be an issue, even on smaller, degraded cells.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Zodiark1593
Why autocorrect, why?

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Requiring very high bursts of current, even if for a brief period, is relatively uncharted waters for standard smartphone batteries. Details are sparse though, and I admittedly find it hard to believe that a mobile phone can draw enough amps that this would be an issue, even on smaller, degraded cells.

All batteries are actually capable of putting out huge amounts of peak current, batteries are actually fairly dangerous because of that. The problem doesn't come from the current output itself but the voltage drop that happens when outputting peak current, this gets lower as the battery degrades.

 

So the charged and steady state voltage might be within tolerance but not when outputting over a certain current causing voltage drop greater than which the regulators in the device can compensate for causing the output voltage to components being too low which is actually a rather bad thing to happen.

[Zodiark1593]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

All batteries are actually capable of putting out huge amounts of peak current, batteries are actually fairly dangerous because of that. The problem doesn't come from the current output itself but the voltage drop that happens when outputting peak current, this gets lower as the battery degrades.

 

So the charged and steady state voltage might be within tolerance but not when outputting over a certain current causing voltage drop greater than which the regulators in the device can compensate for causing the output voltage to components being too low which is actually a rather bad thing to happen.

Forgot about the voltage drop bit. Rather sad on my part, as I was in RC for a bit. 

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

as I was in RC for a bit.

RC? Going to feel stupid when you tell me what that means too lol.

[Zodiark1593]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

RC? Going to feel stupid when you tell me what that means too lol.

Radio Control stuff, namely RC cars in this case.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Radio Control stuff, namely RC cars in this case.

lol yep totally obvious. Here I was think [blank] College or [something] Course, so far off.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

If iPhones had started shutting down hard instead of throttling back when the batteries wore out, the more savvy people would have quickly figured out that the batteries were at fault. It would be all over the forums.  The regular users would then quickly learn that they can get the battery replaced for $100 or so, which means that they would not buy a new iPhone for 4-5 years, reducing Apple's profit. 

By letting the phones throttle down without disclosing it to anyone, they got people to buy a completely new phone every 2 years or so because the old one became so slow that it was barely usable anymore.

 

So yeah, I'm not buying the "but we're doing this for the customers" excuse.  Pretty sure they're doing it for their own profit and their shareholders.

 

Admitting that they did slow down phones was simply damage control.  They knew that people were trying to get to the bottom of this.  If a researcher had come up with hard evidence of the throttling whilst they were still denying it, it would have been a PR disaster. 

[mr moose]

52 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Forgot about the voltage drop bit. Rather sad on my part, as I was in RC for a bit. 

Not really sad,  I have 3 qualifications (2 in Electronics and one in social welfare) and a further 3 separate professional qualifications + more than 6 years experience in another 2 non qualified professions. And I forget specific shit all the time.  Not only that but I also meet people with no training or formal education who by sheer inherent talent and devoted interest run rings around me and my seniors.   The important bit is you didn't guess or pretend you knew, you simply expressed your experience.    Which carries more weight as both an opinion and informational post than some of the posts around here. 

[AlTech]

40 minutes ago, leadeater said:

lol yep totally obvious. Here I was think [blank] College or [something] Course, so far off.

And here I was thinking Release Candidate .

 

Shows how much of a programming dork I am .  I'll show myself out.

 

But on a more serious note, what happened to software changelogs? these days Microsoft, Apple and Google hide stuff from changelogs and sometimes outright refuse to release changelogs.

 

This is anti-consumer and should be discouraged.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

But on a more serious note, what happened to software changelogs? these days Microsoft, Apple and Google hide stuff from changelogs and sometimes outright refuse to release changelogs.

 

This is anti-consumer and should be discouraged.

As I said in another thread, the law seems to be along way away from tech theses days.  Tech and the companies that use/develop it has evolved faster than we can adjust to it (in a legal and moral sense).  Time needs to be taken to define what constitutes pertinent information for a consumer and what is a realistic expectation threshold for such things on a consumer device.  At the moment the courts are being asked to answer many questions that society should have already answered and those answers are being influenced by lawyers, not working groups that represent everyday people.  

 

Especially in regard to this thread:

It's all very well to sit back and say "I'm fine with this" because right now it's debatable/non consequential, but tomorrow it won't be debatable because the precedent will have been set and you didn't get a say.   Bring all the class actions, even if they fail they at least show a history of consumer concern and disapproval. 

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

You wouldn't mind providing the section in which Apple explained why they are doing this then?

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

 

If it has nothing to do with batteries becoming less capable over time, then why mention it at all?  Oh that's right, they mentioned it only after being caught out.

 

EDIT: of course the independent tests show this "feature" to be the cause of the performance drop, so the only way you could defend apple would be to claim Apple didn't know their update would do that.   I can't really buy that.

There's one very pertinent fact that's missing here, the reason Apple gave for doing this still hasn't been proven to be true. It's entirely possible that there's more to this than Apple is telling us about.

 

For a company with a history of lying that's just been caught lying it's totally possible the excuse is also a lie.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

 

There's one very pertinent fact that's missing here, the reason Apple gave for doing this still hasn't been proven to be true. It's entirely possible that there's more to this than Apple is telling us about.

 

For a company with a history of lying that's just been caught lying it's totally possible the excuse is also a lie.

I thought independent tests were validated and correlated slowdowns with older batteries? The verge article claims this happened and John Poole mapped the results to IOS versions and battery age/condition.  Even happening on the iphone7 which is only just over a year out now. 

 

 

 

 

[Master Disaster]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I thought independent tests were validated and correlated slowdowns with older batteries? The verge article claims this happened and John Poole mapped the results to IOS versions and battery age/condition.  Even happening on the iphone7 which is only just over a year out now.

Yeah your correct but at this point my distrust in Apple extends further than my belief in independent testing.

 

IMO Apple are the amongst shadiest corporations in existence and when someone lies to you so much you start to distrust everything you hear about them.

 

Until the courts independently verify that this throttling is because of bad batteries and not to force obselesence onto devices that are still fine I doubt I be able to believe it. I'll need a full investigation to happen and not just some lab tests.

[captain_to_fire]

16 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Until the courts independently verify that this throttling is because of bad batteries and not to force obselesence onto devices that are still fine I doubt I be able to believe it. I'll need a full investigation to happen and not just some lab tests.

One way to verify this is to take older iPhones (6, 6+, 6s, 6s+, 7, 7+) with a big sample size and divide it into two variables, one will have their batteries changed while the others won’t. Since synthetic benchmarks don’t reflect UI responsiveness, I hope someone can make a  benchmark for UI responsiveness but that might pose a challenge as apps can only access parts of the system as to what the OS is allowing unlike Android.

 

If this litigation proceeds as planned, there’s no way this will be settled in a few months unless Apple makes a statement that everyone who participated in the lawsuit will get $100 as payment for damages and we’ll notify what system changes will occur once the update is installed including how much throttling will occur and potentially the number of remaining charging cycles. I hope Apple does Android style updates where feature updates (new iOS features) will be separate with security patches. 

[abazigal]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

And here I was thinking Release Candidate .

 

Shows how much of a programming dork I am .  I'll show myself out.

 

But on a more serious note, what happened to software changelogs? these days Microsoft, Apple and Google hide stuff from changelogs and sometimes outright refuse to release changelogs.

 

This is anti-consumer and should be discouraged.

Apple’s changelog read as such. It doesn’t seem like they were going out of their way to hide this, but their communication sure sucked. 

 

https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/apple-says-ios-10-2-1-has-reduced-unexpected-iphone-6s-shutdown-issues-by-80/amp/

 

iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your iPhone or iPad.

It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.

 

https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_GB

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, abazigal said:

Apple’s changelog read as such. It doesn’t seem like they were going out of their way to hide this, but their communication sure sucked. 

 

https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/apple-says-ios-10-2-1-has-reduced-unexpected-iphone-6s-shutdown-issues-by-80/amp/

 

iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your iPhone or iPad.

It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.

 

https://support.apple.com/kb/DL1893?locale=en_GB

That's actually not what the original release notes for 10.2.1 said, also that link is for 10.0 to 10.3.3 which includes the release notes for all updates included however they are not the original release notes.

 

Quote

iOS 10.2.1 is a bug fix, pure and simple. In fact the release notes from Apple only state: “iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your device”. There is not even the usual ‘performance enhancements’ reference Apple tends to include in most updates. And yet these fixes make iOS 10.2.1 essential.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2017/01/25/apple-ios-10-2-1-release-should-you-upgrade/#5e4b98095a3a

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, hey_yo_ said:

One way to verify this is to take older iPhones (6, 6+, 6s, 6s+, 7, 7+) with a big sample size and divide it into two variables, one will have their batteries changed while the others won’t. Since synthetic benchmarks don’t reflect UI responsiveness, I hope someone can make a  benchmark for UI responsiveness but that might pose a challenge as apps can only access parts of the system as to what the OS is allowing unlike Android.

 

If this litigation proceeds as planned, there’s no way this will be settled in a few months unless Apple makes a statement that everyone who participated in the lawsuit will get $100 as payment for damages and we’ll notify what system changes will occur once the update is installed including how much throttling will occur and potentially the number of remaining charging cycles. I hope Apple does Android style updates where feature updates (new iOS features) will be separate with security patches. 

But in that scenario you still can't determine if devices have been throttled solely because of the battery or even if Apple are throttling because of the battery but throttling more than is required to make it look worse than it is.

 

There's countless scenarios where Apple can use the excuse of poor batteries to arbitrarily restrict phones and unless you're willing to spend the time and money to swap out the battery on every phone you tested then re test them all again it's impossible to know if they're telling the truth.

 

The courts need to see documents, emails, memos and minutes, access to the code of the update and the time to sift through it all and determine if Apple are tells the truth.

 

I know it sounds like I got my tinfoil hat on too tight right now but I have a very large distrust of large corporations in general, they're like sharks hunting the oceans looking for credit card numbers to feed on and most of them don't blink an eye at breaking the law and doing real shady shit in the pursuit of more moniez.

 

Also to be clear, if it turns out Apple are telling the truth then fine, I'm OK with them doing this if it means safe and usable devices. They SHOULD have told users exactly what and why they did what they did but that's a separate issue for me. First let's find out if they're telling the truth then worry about them not telling users afterwards.

[abazigal]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

There's countless scenarios where Apple can use the excuse of poor batteries to arbitrarily restrict phones and unless you're willing to spend the time and money to swap out the battery on every phone you tested then re test them all again it's impossible to know if they're telling the truth.

That Apple chose to peg the slowdown to battery health, rather than have the software update slow down all iPhones uniformly regardless of the state of their batteries makes me inclined to believe that Apple was genuinely acting in the best interests of its users (or so they believed). Think about it - if Apple had chosen the latter, they would never have been found out, because Geekbench would have returned the same results regardless of the state of the battery in the phone. 

 

The way I see it, they were faced with an engineering problem, and so they went about solving it in an engineering fashion, and a software patch was, in their opinion, the most convenient and expedient way of resolving the issue potentially facing hundreds of millions of iPhones. Not every user is in a position where they can readily exchange the battery in their phone, and a popup may just lead to more confusion and panic. 

 

Apple didn't go out of their way to hide this information from the users either, just that in their opinion, the consumer didn't need to know. Seems like a bunch of pretty bad calls made by Apple in hindsight. Not saying their actions are excusable, but I don't think Apple deliberately slowing down your iPhones with the express and malicious intent of tricking users into upgrading any sooner than they had to (though it is undeniable that this was likely a consequence thereof). 

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, abazigal said:

That Apple chose to peg the slowdown to battery health, rather than have the software update slow down all iPhones uniformly regardless of the state of their batteries makes me inclined to believe that Apple was genuinely acting in the best interests of its users (or so they believed). Think about it - if Apple had chosen the latter, they would never have been found out, because Geekbench would have returned the same results regardless of the state of the battery in the phone. 

 

The way I see it, they were faced with an engineering problem, and so they went about solving it in an engineering fashion, and a software patch was, in their opinion, the most convenient and expedient way of resolving the issue potentially facing hundreds of millions of iPhones. Not every user is in a position where they can readily exchange the battery in their phone, and a popup may just lead to more confusion and panic. 

 

Apple didn't go out of their way to hide this information from the users either, just that in their opinion, the consumer didn't need to know. Seems like a bunch of pretty bad calls made by Apple in hindsight. Not saying their actions are excusable, but I don't think Apple deliberately slowing down your iPhones with the express and malicious intent of tricking users into upgrading any sooner than they had to (though it is undeniable that this was likely a consequence thereof). 

It's also nice to remember that companies have employees, these are real people the same as everyone else. They also tend to like their job and enjoy designing and solving problems that care about the products they make and the people that use them. The fact that this power management feature is so precisely targeted at a single issue it feels like this directly came from an engineer or group of that had identified an issue and were addressing it.

 

If the performance was not restored with a new battery then I would be suspicious of intent, making something slower due to age without a reasonable metric to base it off other than age is far more a corporate body solution to a technical issue than actually checking the battery health.

[Jito463]

11 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

And why should they? I guarantee their UELA lets them do this without having to notify you at all.

I know you're a fan of Apple, but are you really arguing that companies can put whatever they want in the EULA and get away with it?  Are you seriously trying to use that as an argument?

10 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

They don't need to win customer trust, they have earned it over the years and I can tell you this lawsuit isn't going to impact consumer trust in Apple at all. 

If they keep pulling crap like this, it will definitely erode trust in them.

10 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

And no matter how much information you give the consumer that is not going to change. 

 

There is a limit in which a company should have to explain the obvious to you. Granted the obvious might not be obvious to everyone but that is not Apples fault. 

There is absolutely NOTHING obvious about the phone slowing down because of the battery.  That was an intentional design choice by Apple, which they failed to disclose to people.  Personally, I'd recommend such a feature be optional only, but at the very least they should be disclosing it to their customers.

10 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

With telling people. 

 

I am fine with not telling people information that they don't need to be told via a warning label. 

 

"warning, your tires will wear out and will need to be replaced" aka "warning, your battery is warn out and will need to be replaced" the point being these are obvious things and should be expected. 

 

Apple told the internet, now everybody knows. Thats good enough. 

 

This isn't something were lives are at risk or anything of actual consequence is involved. 

Apple didn't tell people anything, they were found out and were forced to disclose it.  Even you have to acknowledge that reality.