6 ms·

Apple throttling phones to preserve battery life was the right thing to do. Doing it without telling users their batteries were expired and causing their phone

Apple throttling phones to preserve battery life was the right thing to do. Doing it without telling users their batteries were expired and causing their phone to slow down was the wrong thing to do. Whether that merits a $27m fine is debatable.

outworlder 7y ago
My pretty new phone will also throttle when the battery gets low (at close to 1%). It's very noticeable, but there's no warning. Where do I collect my $27M?
- viklove 7y ago
  It doesn't matter if there's no warning when it hits 1%, it matters if the behavior of the device changes several years into the product's lifespan for the worse, and without any warning that it will change or has changed. It's also a bit nefarious that the slowdown coincided with a new product launch, so side-by-side comparisons show that the new devices are much, much "faster" than the old ones (which were slowed down without any notification). It's borderline fraudulent. Good thing we've got people like you standing up for the trillion dollar companies of the world, though. They really need your help.
manfredo 7y ago
I find it hard to see legitimate criticism of Apple for their state of charge management when this kind of technology is effectively universal for any substantial battery powered device. Almost every phone or laptop built in the last decade has functionality that lower clock rates when the battery is not outputting enough voltage. The alternative is crashing because the processor is not being supplied sufficient voltage. It'd be funny if the US turned around and started fining French electronics that have this same functionality - it'd lay bare the double standards being applied here.
chadlavi 7y ago
It's not, but a lot of people got really mad, so it makes the politicians look good to their constituents if they do something punitive to satisfy the mob's anger.
- 1_2__4 7y ago
  You’re sarcastically mocking politicians in a democracy doing what their constituents want?
bgorman 7y ago
I absolutely disagree. These phones were unusable with the throttling. I switched to Android because my iPhone 6 was unusable less than 3 years after getting it. This is like saying that an appropriate fix for a car manufacture is to limit the maximum speed of a car to 25 miles per hour. It breaks so many use cases that the car becomes worthless.
- puszczyk 7y ago
  Idk, anecdotally my iPhone 6s (ok, it’s 6a not 6) is perfectly usable 4 years after the purchase. I have the throttling on.
  - Infernal 7y ago
    My iPhone 6 that I bought at launch was useable for all five years it was supported by iOS, on the original battery. Only upgraded for iOS 13. I still switch it on as a Netflix terminal sometimes, no issues. Crucially, I never once left it plugged in all night - I believe not constantly fully charging the battery massively extends the useful life.
- ninkendo 7y ago
  > This is like saying that an appropriate fix for a car manufacture is to limit the maximum speed of a car to 25 miles per hour. It breaks so many use cases that the car becomes worthless. Would you prefer the car simply turn off entirely while driving at highway speeds? Because phones with this issue would turn off entirely below certain charge levels, when the batteries had this issue. A more appropriate analogy would be that your car's fuel pump could randomly fail at highway speeds when below 1/2 tank, so the manufacturer just started arbitrarily limiting the car to drive 25mph to avoid the pump shutting off, when it detected this issue. Point being, the real problem is not the mitigation they employed, but the fact that they didn't tell users in any way, users just saw a slower phone (equivalent to a slower car.) If my car detected a fuel pump issue for me and said "Fuel pump needs replacing, car is limited to 25mph when below half-tank to avoid catastrophic failure, please take to service center", it would be acceptable. Arbitrarily limiting to 25mph without any indication why, not so much.
ElKrist 7y ago
Exactly. Apple did not get fined for slowing phones down but for failing to inform the users. It's the first sentence of the article. Perhaps the title on HN is misleading?
- privateSFacct 7y ago
  The first sentences are this: France fines Apple €25 million for slowing iPhone software France's consumer watchdog slapped on the fine two years after Apple admitted its iOS software slowed down the performance of older phones. Then a huge photo. The failure to notify thing is fine - Apple should notify folks that a) they may be using a non-apple battery if they can detect that - was a common scam to replace the battery with a junker just before resale to show full battery for those checking b) showing battery life for batteries they know are legit c) warning users (and/or giving the user an option) to extend battery life by running phone slower.
kazinator 7y ago
I own a Samsung phone from 2012 that runs fine, and has okay battery life.
- soperj 7y ago
  Yep. still using my Galaxy S3 here. Battery still lasts through the day.
egwor 7y ago
I might be one of the few, but I think it does warrant it. People buy devices and expect them to work and keep working. If the battery had an issue then it should have flagged up that the phone was saving battery life and that they should replace the battery. We can't keep throwing away devices like this; it isn't good for the environment. Why do I think it is important to be told? My old iPad has almost overnight slowed right down and it is unusable - utterly pointless using it. Why do you think that it slowed down? A new update? Maybe. Or maybe it is the battery. Let me go check... yes, the battery has an issue. Only because I know where to check means that I know how to resolve the issue. And I know that the battery replacement cost will be ridiculously expensive. If I didn't know this then I would buy something else. That's pretty bad.
- choward 7y ago
  Not having easily replaceable batteries is definitely the root problem. Everyone knows that batteries can't last forever and the weak link in having something last for years yet everyone is perfectly fine with non replaceable batteries. I know so many people who have bought new phones when all they need is a new battery. It's mind boggling.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Apple replaced my battery for $29. Not bad. Replaceable batteries come with their own trade-offs, namely water intrusion through failing seals. I'd rather pay occasionally for someone skilled to replace the battery than replace the entire phone after a drop in the sink.
    - ivanche 7y ago
      Honestly, how many times you damaged your phone with water? In the last 23 years I spilled a bit of water on the phone once and it survived.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        I ski, kayak, and do a lot of hiking. The trend towards more waterproof phones has been a godsend to me.
jb775 7y ago
> Apple throttling phones to preserve battery life was the right thing to do. I don't buy this for a second. They've been throttling devices for many years and conveniently never mentioned it or built features that allowed control of it until they were forced to. It was always their fallback excuse in the event they got caught. Their next strategy is building hardware that forces devices to constantly hold full battery charges at all times so it kills the (un-replaceable) battery faster which leads to a faster re-purchase (i.e. airpods).
- codydh 7y ago
  They've literally started adding features for iPhones to do just the opposite of what you claim, optimizing charging based on your charging habits. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210512 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210512
  - jb775 7y ago
    I'm saying the only reason they just started doing this is because they got caught doing the complete opposite (which directly lead to millions in extra unethical sales). Why aren't they adding these "new features" for any Apple devices besides iPhones? Are you saying they don't have the capability or that the underlying issue isn't the same?
solarkraft 7y ago
It merits a fine that is 10-100x as high. They could've given users the choice to enable that "protection" from the beginning or leave it off at the end, but instead they chose to implement something that looks suspiciously like it was designed to make people replace their devices way prematurely. We call that planned obsolescence and I believe in France it is illegal.

outworlder 7y ago

My pretty new phone will also throttle when the battery gets low (at close to 1%). It's very noticeable, but there's no warning. Where do I collect my $27M?

viklove 7y ago
It doesn't matter if there's no warning when it hits 1%, it matters if the behavior of the device changes several years into the product's lifespan for the worse, and without any warning that it will change or has changed. It's also a bit nefarious that the slowdown coincided with a new product launch, so side-by-side comparisons show that the new devices are much, much "faster" than the old ones (which were slowed down without any notification). It's borderline fraudulent. Good thing we've got people like you standing up for the trillion dollar companies of the world, though. They really need your help.

manfredo 7y ago

I find it hard to see legitimate criticism of Apple for their state of charge management when this kind of technology is effectively universal for any substantial battery powered device. Almost every phone or laptop built in the last decade has functionality that lower clock rates when the battery is not outputting enough voltage. The alternative is crashing because the processor is not being supplied sufficient voltage. It'd be funny if the US turned around and started fining French electronics that have this same functionality - it'd lay bare the double standards being applied here.

chadlavi 7y ago

It's not, but a lot of people got really mad, so it makes the politicians look good to their constituents if they do something punitive to satisfy the mob's anger.

1_2__4 7y ago
You’re sarcastically mocking politicians in a democracy doing what their constituents want?

bgorman 7y ago

I absolutely disagree. These phones were unusable with the throttling. I switched to Android because my iPhone 6 was unusable less than 3 years after getting it. This is like saying that an appropriate fix for a car manufacture is to limit the maximum speed of a car to 25 miles per hour. It breaks so many use cases that the car becomes worthless.

puszczyk 7y ago
Idk, anecdotally my iPhone 6s (ok, it’s 6a not 6) is perfectly usable 4 years after the purchase. I have the throttling on.
- Infernal 7y ago
  My iPhone 6 that I bought at launch was useable for all five years it was supported by iOS, on the original battery. Only upgraded for iOS 13. I still switch it on as a Netflix terminal sometimes, no issues. Crucially, I never once left it plugged in all night - I believe not constantly fully charging the battery massively extends the useful life.
ninkendo 7y ago
> This is like saying that an appropriate fix for a car manufacture is to limit the maximum speed of a car to 25 miles per hour. It breaks so many use cases that the car becomes worthless. Would you prefer the car simply turn off entirely while driving at highway speeds? Because phones with this issue would turn off entirely below certain charge levels, when the batteries had this issue. A more appropriate analogy would be that your car's fuel pump could randomly fail at highway speeds when below 1/2 tank, so the manufacturer just started arbitrarily limiting the car to drive 25mph to avoid the pump shutting off, when it detected this issue. Point being, the real problem is not the mitigation they employed, but the fact that they didn't tell users in any way, users just saw a slower phone (equivalent to a slower car.) If my car detected a fuel pump issue for me and said "Fuel pump needs replacing, car is limited to 25mph when below half-tank to avoid catastrophic failure, please take to service center", it would be acceptable. Arbitrarily limiting to 25mph without any indication why, not so much.

ElKrist 7y ago

Exactly. Apple did not get fined for slowing phones down but for failing to inform the users. It's the first sentence of the article. Perhaps the title on HN is misleading?

privateSFacct 7y ago
The first sentences are this: France fines Apple €25 million for slowing iPhone software France's consumer watchdog slapped on the fine two years after Apple admitted its iOS software slowed down the performance of older phones. Then a huge photo. The failure to notify thing is fine - Apple should notify folks that a) they may be using a non-apple battery if they can detect that - was a common scam to replace the battery with a junker just before resale to show full battery for those checking b) showing battery life for batteries they know are legit c) warning users (and/or giving the user an option) to extend battery life by running phone slower.

kazinator 7y ago

I own a Samsung phone from 2012 that runs fine, and has okay battery life.

soperj 7y ago
Yep. still using my Galaxy S3 here. Battery still lasts through the day.

egwor 7y ago

I might be one of the few, but I think it does warrant it. People buy devices and expect them to work and keep working. If the battery had an issue then it should have flagged up that the phone was saving battery life and that they should replace the battery. We can't keep throwing away devices like this; it isn't good for the environment. Why do I think it is important to be told? My old iPad has almost overnight slowed right down and it is unusable - utterly pointless using it. Why do you think that it slowed down? A new update? Maybe. Or maybe it is the battery. Let me go check... yes, the battery has an issue. Only because I know where to check means that I know how to resolve the issue. And I know that the battery replacement cost will be ridiculously expensive. If I didn't know this then I would buy something else. That's pretty bad.

choward 7y ago
Not having easily replaceable batteries is definitely the root problem. Everyone knows that batteries can't last forever and the weak link in having something last for years yet everyone is perfectly fine with non replaceable batteries. I know so many people who have bought new phones when all they need is a new battery. It's mind boggling.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Apple replaced my battery for $29. Not bad. Replaceable batteries come with their own trade-offs, namely water intrusion through failing seals. I'd rather pay occasionally for someone skilled to replace the battery than replace the entire phone after a drop in the sink.
  - ivanche 7y ago
    Honestly, how many times you damaged your phone with water? In the last 23 years I spilled a bit of water on the phone once and it survived.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      I ski, kayak, and do a lot of hiking. The trend towards more waterproof phones has been a godsend to me.

jb775 7y ago

> Apple throttling phones to preserve battery life was the right thing to do. I don't buy this for a second. They've been throttling devices for many years and conveniently never mentioned it or built features that allowed control of it until they were forced to. It was always their fallback excuse in the event they got caught. Their next strategy is building hardware that forces devices to constantly hold full battery charges at all times so it kills the (un-replaceable) battery faster which leads to a faster re-purchase (i.e. airpods).

codydh 7y ago
They've literally started adding features for iPhones to do just the opposite of what you claim, optimizing charging based on your charging habits. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210512 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210512
- jb775 7y ago
  I'm saying the only reason they just started doing this is because they got caught doing the complete opposite (which directly lead to millions in extra unethical sales). Why aren't they adding these "new features" for any Apple devices besides iPhones? Are you saying they don't have the capability or that the underlying issue isn't the same?

solarkraft 7y ago

It merits a fine that is 10-100x as high. They could've given users the choice to enable that "protection" from the beginning or leave it off at the end, but instead they chose to implement something that looks suspiciously like it was designed to make people replace their devices way prematurely. We call that planned obsolescence and I believe in France it is illegal.