Apple faces 26+ class-actions over the iPhone battery fiasco

[D13H4RD]

Well, this certainly hadn’t gone well for them.

 

Apple is currently facing 26+ class action lawsuits filed by disgruntled iPhone users over Apple throttling iPhones based on battery health. 

 

Quote

The lawsuits include 24 class action complaints in the United States, with the latest two filed on Thursday by Marc Honigman and Lauri Sullivan-Stefanou in New York and Ohio respectively, according to electronic court records reviewed by MacRumors. Apple is also being sued in Israel and France. 

An excerpt from Sullivan-Stefanou's complaint:

Unbeknownst to iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, and iPhone 6s owners, Apple inserted code into iOS 10.2.1 that deliberately slowed down the processing performance of these phones by linking each phone's processing performance with its battery health. Absent the code inserted by Apple, the reduced battery capacity of these phones would not have negatively affected processing performance.

Many of the lawsuits demand Apple compensate all iPhone users who have experienced slowdowns, offer free battery replacements, refund customers who purchased brand new iPhones to regain maximum performance, and add info to iOS explaining how replacing an iPhone's battery can prevent slowdowns. 

The legal action comes after Apple's revelation it may at times dynamically manage the maximum performance of some older iPhone models with chemically aged batteries in order to prevent the devices from unexpectedly shutting down, an issue that can be made worse by cold temperatures or a low charge. 

Apple never mentioned the power management changes, which it calls a feature, when it released iOS 10.2.1 nearly a year ago. A month after the software update became available, Apple still only vaguely mentioned that it made "improvements"that resulted in a significant reduction in unexpected shutdowns. 

Apple only revealed exactly what the so-called "improvements" were after Primate Labs founder John Poole visualized that some iPhone 6s and iPhone 7 devices suddenly had lower benchmark scores starting with iOS 10.2.1 and iOS 11.2 respectively despite operating at maximum performance on previous versions. 

Poole's analysis was in response to a Reddit user who claimed his iPhone 6s was significantly faster after replacing the device's battery. The discussion generated over 1,000 comments, and reinforced an opinion held by some that Apple purposefully slows down older iPhones so customers buy newer ones. 

Honigman's complaint, edited very slightly for clarity, echoes this opinion:

Apple's intentional degradation of the iPhone's performance through the release of iOS impacted the usability of the device. Effectively, Apple has forced the obsolescence of iPhones by secretly diminishing their performance. Thus, Apple's admission has confirmed what iPhone users have long suspected – i.e., that Apple deliberately degrades the performance of older iPhone models through iOS updates to encourage users to buy new iPhones.

Apple has since issued an apology for its lack of communication, and it has reduced the price of battery replacements to $29 for iPhone 6 and newer through the end of 2018. Apple has also promised to release an iOS update early this year that will give users more visibility into the health of their iPhone's battery. 

Keep in mind that Apple is not permanently or persistently slowing down older iPhones. Even if your iPhone is affected, the performance limitations only happen intermittently, and only when the device is completing demanding tasks. 

Source: https://www.macrumors.com/2018/01/05/apple-faces-23-lawsuits-for-iphone-slowdowns/

 

Honestly, while I feel that Apple’s intentions weren’t that sinister, they did themselves zero favors by not disclosing that information with customers in a proper manner. In fact, I’m willing to wager that the number of lawsuits would have been at least lower had there been a notification about the iPhone’s battery health, such as “iPhone’s battery is degraded and may require servicing”.

[Drak3]

Good. Serves them right for doing it without giving the user notice, much less a way to circumvent it if they so chosen.

[bob345]

Apple: "no, this is a feature, we planned this all along to make your phone stable. Yes, that's exactly what we did. Definitely not planned obsolescence, no way nuh uh."

 

Looks like that went smoothly am I right?

[Jenjar]

Yeah, they really never did it well. They did say they are adding someway to monitor when the battery gets bad and the CPU is clocked down, but who knows when that will be coming, and I hope they make it so you can stop it from doing that if you just want to deal with the lower battery life, if a feature like that can be added.

 

I have always thought they have done something like this to force users to buy a new phone after a couple of years, but I guess that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

[DrMacintosh]

I wonder how many will stand and how many will just be thrown into each other or how many will fail. 

[8uhbbhu8]

Well.. We knew this was coming. I just didn't expect so many in such a short space of time. I'm guessing at least half that are accepted will be settled outside

[PineyCreek]

In other news, people love money and think lawsuits are an easy way to profit.  Generally-speaking, they may be right in this instance.

[D13H4RD]

10 minutes ago, PineyCreek said:

In other news, people love money and think lawsuits are an easy way to profit.  Generally-speaking, they may be right in this instance.

It’s more to do with how they did so without the users knowing.

 

Granted, they have every right to be pissed off. I get the reasons behind it, but even so, doing it without people knowing is a dickish move.

[Matu20]

I'm still in the minority, but I think Apple tried to do good. I'd rather lose perf over years than increase the chance of complete failure.

 

But the "feature" should've been disclosed from the start.

[D13H4RD]

3 hours ago, bob345 said:

Apple: "no, this is a feature, we planned this all along to make your phone stable. Yes, that's exactly what we did. Definitely not planned obsolescence, no way nuh uh."

 

Looks like that went smoothly am I right?

They really should have explained it better.

 

Or tell users beforehand

[johnukguy]

Good and I look forward to the EU hammering Apple for their shitty and deceptive practices soon too.

[vorticalbox]

4 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

I wonder how many will stand and how many will just be thrown into each other or how many will fail. 

No one cares when Microsoft introduced some heavy process killing when running on battery but apple do it and everyone loses their shit.

 

Lots of devices slow down when running on battery. 

[johnukguy]

21 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

No one cares when Microsoft introduced some heavy process killing when running on battery but apple do it and everyone loses their shit.

 

Lots of devices slow down when running on battery. 

Such as what exactly? 

[D13H4RD]

33 minutes ago, vorticalbox said:

No one cares when Microsoft introduced some heavy process killing when running on battery but apple do it and everyone loses their shit.

 

Lots of devices slow down when running on battery. 

I think what they mean is that Apple slows the device down from peak performance over time as the battery degrades in order to avoid the device from suddenly shutting off due to the battery being unable to supply the required wattage as it used to.

 

The problem is that Apple did so without explaining to the user over what’s happening. It was pretty much snuck in.

 

Their intentions may not be as sinister, but you can’t deny that the way they put that piece of code in without explaining to their customers over what is happening until confronted is not doing them any favors.

[Sauron]

34 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

I think what they mean is that Apple slows the device down from peak performance over time as the battery degrades in order to avoid the device from suddenly shutting off due to the battery being unable to supply the required wattage as it used to.

 

The problem is that Apple did so without explaining to the user over what’s happening. It was pretty much snuck in.

 

Their intentions may not be as sinister, but you can’t deny that the way they put that piece of code in without explaining to their customers over what is happening until confronted is not doing them any favors.

It also doesn't help that this shows their previous statements about non removable batteries are straight up lies and that the batteries themselves were not up to the task - if it gets to the point where the phone might shut down after little more than a year of use then clearly it wasn't designed very well. They decided to go for an insufficient battery in order to make it oh so slim but, since they still wanted those sweet synthetic benchmark scores, they didn't dial down the cpu's performance accordingly. Planned obsolescence or not, this is a shady marketing practice.

[asus killer]

is it just me thinking that if they really only cared about consumer they would made it easy to swap batteries even if only their batteries could work on the phones.

A shitty and obvious planned obsolescence move.

[D13H4RD]

34 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It also doesn't help that this shows their previous statements about non removable batteries are straight up lies and that the batteries themselves were not up to the task - if it gets to the point where the phone might shut down after little more than a year of use then clearly it wasn't designed very well. They decided to go for an insufficient battery in order to make it oh so slim but, since they still wanted those sweet synthetic benchmark scores, they didn't dial down the cpu's performance accordingly. Planned obsolescence or not, this is a shady marketing practice.

500 recharge cycles is a joke, especially when the much smaller Apple Watch has double of that. 

 

I kinda want to tell Motorola the same since they boasted that they don't slow down phones due to battery degradation but my Moto Z was thermal throttling all the way and the battery is shot as a result, forcing the phone to shut off at 35%.

33 minutes ago, asus killer said:

is it just me thinking that if they really only cared about consumer they would made it easy to swap batteries even if only their batteries could work on the phones.

A shitty and obvious planned obsolescence move.

Unfortunately, sealed batteries are a trend now. 

 

It's kinda funny because the battery on my Note8 is much harder to replace than on an iPhone 6 and 6s (same on the 7 but you have a water resistant seal to worry about) 

 

The real problem is getting Apple to replace the battery since they will refuse it if it passes whatever BS diagnostics they have, even if you offer to pay for it 

[asus killer]

13 minutes ago, D13H4RD2L1V3 said:

 

Unfortunately, sealed batteries are a trend now. 

 

It's kinda funny because the battery on my Note8 is much harder to replace than on an iPhone 6 and 6s (same on the 7 but you have a water resistant seal to worry about) 

 

The real problem is getting Apple to replace the battery since they will refuse it if it passes whatever BS diagnostics they have, even if you offer to pay for it 

i was not trashing Apple for being Apple. I hate that my android phone does not let me easy swap my battery. I hate the trend. That on top of what Apple did makes it worst i guess. It has to be my battery, you cannot open it, i will make it as hard as i can,... are all shitty moves.

BTW you meant sealed phones not sealed batteries i guess.

[D13H4RD]

4 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i was not trashing Apple for being Apple. I hate that my android phone does not let me easy swap my battery. I hate the trend. That on top of what Apple did makes it worst i guess. It has to be my battery, you cannot open it, i will make it as hard as i can,... are all shitty moves.

BTW you meant sealed phones not sealed batteries i guess.

You can blame aesthetics for that trend. 

 

Another reason why glass phones are a thing. 

[jaggysnake57]

On 06/01/2018 at 6:25 AM, bob345 said:

Apple: "no, this is a feature, we planned this all along to make your phone stable. Yes, that's exactly what we did. Definitely not planned obsolescence, no way nuh uh."

 

Looks like that went smoothly am I right?

 

23 hours ago, asus killer said:

is it just me thinking that if they really only cared about consumer they would made it easy to swap batteries even if only their batteries could work on the phones.

A shitty and obvious planned obsolescence move.

"planned obsolescence" and yet my 6+ lasted 4 years, if that was there intention then there shit at it. 

 

apple deserve to get sued. they hid this from the consumer for a reason, they knew people would be pissed. BUT all this planned obsolescence is BS, if your gonna get people to upgrade then you want your phone to last the length of the contract and no longer, look at most android phones. they get 2 years of support (if your lucky) then its left in the cold.

[Guest]

Laughable. Just a bunch of idiots trying to get money.

 

Apple has adjusted power management like this before in the past and no-one blinked an eye.

 

I'm pretty sure these people can afford the 29 pounds to get a replacement. A whole class action to get out of 29 pounds!

"Effectively, Apple has forced the obsolescence of iPhones by secretly diminishing their performance" - absolutely the opposite of what they do.

Honigman has done no reasearch at all. Disgrace.
 

[Mat1926]

14 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Laughable. Just a bunch of idiots trying to get money.

Totally agree...

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, RorzNZ said:

Laughable. Just a bunch of idiots trying to get money.

 

Apple has adjusted power management like this before in the past and no-one blinked an eye.

 

I'm pretty sure these people can afford the 29 pounds to get a replacement. A whole class action to get out of 29 pounds!

"Effectively, Apple has forced the obsolescence of iPhones by secretly diminishing their performance" - absolutely the opposite of what they do.

Honigman has done no reasearch at all. Disgrace.
 

TBH, it's a lot more to do with how they did this without prior consent.

 

And while I do understand why Apple did them, the batteries used in the iPhone have a maximum rated recharge cycle of 500, which is honestly pathetic when you compare it to the smaller Apple Watch, which has a maximum rated recharge cycle of 1000.

[79wjd]

On 1/6/2018 at 1:25 AM, bob345 said:

Apple: "no, this is a feature, we planned this all along to make your phone stable. Yes, that's exactly what we did. Definitely not planned obsolescence, no way nuh uh."

 

Looks like that went smoothly am I right?

Planned obsolescence doesn't make sense considering the plus models are unaffected. Apple most likely was doing this for battery life and stability reasons as they claim.

[D13H4RD]

1 minute ago, djdwosk97 said:

Planned obsolescence doesn't make sense considering the plus models are unaffected. Apple most likely was doing this for battery life and stability reasons as they claim.

Aren't all iPhone models from the 6 to the 7 affected?

 

I mean, they use the same type of batteries but with different capacities.