8 ms·

Again, it's not that Apple didn't violate the laws of physics on their "magical" device, it's that they: 1. Applied the throttling fix silently 2. Denied warra

Again, it's not that Apple didn't violate the laws of physics on their "magical" device, it's that they: 1. Applied the throttling fix silently 2. Denied warranty replacements 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device.

arcticbull 6y ago
The other option Apple had at their disposal was basically to throttle the device literally all the time so that even when the battery was old the phone would never draw enough current to trigger a brown out condition. Instead what they did was make the most power possible available from the battery at all times, and yes that changed over time. This seems like a much better alternative. I really don’t understand the criticism. The marketing is at issue here. If instead of calling it throttling down when the battery was old they called it boosting up when the battery was new it would have been a best in class feature instead of a $100 million dollar settlement. And yes, at the point where the throttling was taking place, the battery wasn’t defective. That was a completely expected place along the performance curve of a consumable part. So why replace it when it’s working as designed? In my opinion this is the opposite of planned obsolescence, they took devices that would otherwise have to be replaced due to shut downs and allow them to remain in service.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  The other option Apple had here was notifying people their battery was bad, not hiding the throttling, and letting people buy new batteries for a reasonable profit.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    It's not bad though, it's normal, and functioning as expected at that part of the age curve. You can avoid this by reducing performance for the entire time you owned the device so nobody noticed, I guess, but that's all.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > You can avoid this by reducing performance for the entire time you owned the device so nobody noticed, I guess, but that's all. Or you could notify people of the situation, and sell replacement batteries. That would have been the best solution.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Again, the battery is not defective, it is a certain number of years old. That is how batteries perform at a certain age. Batteries are consumable parts like tires and ink cartridges. It's like returning an ink cartridge at 50% capacity because it's only got half the ink left. Yes, that's the point, that's what cartridges do. This feature is designed to always get the most out of a battery. Is that really something to complain about? I guess this is where it's a perspective issue. - You're saying that a new battery starts out at "100%" and that after a year or so, Apple throttles is down to "80%" because it can no longer keep up with how it came out of the factory. Apple designed a function that reduces the performance of a system that's defective to hide the defect. That would be strictly negative. - What I'm saying is that the battery starts out at "120%" out of the factory (which you can confirm, when you buy a new mac check out the Batter mAh vs. design rating in System Report) and eventually drifts towards "100%" over time. Apple designed a system that allows you to get that extra 20% at the start, when it's available. That would be strictly positive.
        Nullabillity 6y ago
        An ink cartridge at 50% still performs about the same as at 100%, it's just got less life in it. A better comparison would be an unevenly worn toner cartridge, where someone keeps going "I don't see the problem, it prints just fine on the sides!".
        stale2002 6y ago
        > That is how batteries perform at a certain age. Ok, and customers should still be informed of whatever it is that you think the situation is, and they should be allowed to purchase a replacement. > This feature is designed to always get the most out of a battery. Is that really something to complain about? They should have still told the customer and allowed people to buy a replacement. > I guess this is where it's a perspective issue. No. My perspective is not that. Instead my perspective is that the consumer should have been told about that, and offered the ability to buy a replacement.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  > I really don’t understand the criticism. Then you are being deliberately obtuse as many here have already explained that this case was never about the throttling. Quoting another user (Karunamon): > Again, it's not that Apple didn't violate the laws of physics on their "magical" device, it's that they: > 1. Applied the throttling fix silently 2. Denied warranty replacements 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device. Basically they were slowing down people's device, without informing them, and forcing them to buy new devices as they refused to replace the battery even when customers were willing to pay for a new battery!
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Ok that's fine but... > 1. Applied the throttling fix silently I would maintain that the device that didn't throttle, taking into account the real capabilities of the battery, and instead shut down unexpectedly at 20% was broken. It was fixed by this patch. > 2. Denied warranty replacements. There's as much reason to replace a battery under warranty that has maintained 80% charge capacity after 1000 cycles or 2 years, as there is an ink cartridge starting to run low. Batteries start getting worse after each charge cycle, and my understanding is that they followed the prescribed policy. > 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed. I'm very much against this policy, as a right-to-repair advocate I believe battery replacements should be simple and end-user achievable. Short of that I agree that the replacement should have been carried out on a cost-plus basis on request. > 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device. This is where we disagree except as I replied in (3).
    - Ygg2 6y ago
      Your point was that throttling is better than not working. But that's a false dichotomy. Rather than throttle. You can show less charge. It's what other phones do.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        Why would I want the phone to turn off sooner?
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  > And yes, at the point where the throttling was taking place, the battery wasn’t defective. Sure, but if I decide I really need a top-shape battery, and I go into an Apple Store and offer to pay full retail price for a new one, shouldn't they give it to me? GP says they were refusing if the battery was above a certain threshold (but low enough that performance adjustments were kicking in.)
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Yep, that I completely agree with. That should not only have been offered, but it should be a user serviceable part.
samstave 6y ago
I had two iPhones with the “balloon battery” problem, after they tested them for speed performance - they reluctantly replaced them even though they were 1 and 2 point Over their threshold even though the batteries were clearly pushing the screen out of the body... Would this count in this case although this was san francisco
unishark 6y ago
Apparently Apple doesn't agree that this is covered under warranty since they have denied wrongdoing (at least last I saw as of the $500M settlement, can't access the latest one).
- yoz-y 6y ago
  Isn’t battery a consumable and thus not covered by warranty by default? (Unless it has a manufacturing defect)
  - kencausey 6y ago
    Is it reasonable to consider an element of a device a consumable if it is not user replaceable?
    - madjam002 6y ago
      No, exactly. I got a free battery replacement on my Macbook Pro after 3 years of having it because the battery was unusable. After going into the Apple store, they said that the battery was a "consumable part" and therefore not covered by the warranty. However, when I asked what the part number was and how I could order a replacement myself, they said that the batteries weren't serviceable and even they had to replace the keyboard unit as that contained the battery and it was all glued together. I pointed out that they've therefore designed this product to fail after a few years as you can't order replacement batteries as a consumer, and they agreed to replace it for free.
      - yoz-y 6y ago
        That is definitely an issue. I guess apple somehow calculated that an occasional free replacement is more economic than not binding the battery to a non-consumable part?
    - snowwrestler 6y ago
      Yes, of course it is. Most users can’t replace tires, spark plugs, or even oil in their cars. Parts are considered consumable if they are reasonably expected to be consumed during normal operation. No court is going to hold a company liable for basic physics.

arcticbull 6y ago

The other option Apple had at their disposal was basically to throttle the device literally all the time so that even when the battery was old the phone would never draw enough current to trigger a brown out condition. Instead what they did was make the most power possible available from the battery at all times, and yes that changed over time. This seems like a much better alternative. I really don’t understand the criticism. The marketing is at issue here. If instead of calling it throttling down when the battery was old they called it boosting up when the battery was new it would have been a best in class feature instead of a $100 million dollar settlement. And yes, at the point where the throttling was taking place, the battery wasn’t defective. That was a completely expected place along the performance curve of a consumable part. So why replace it when it’s working as designed? In my opinion this is the opposite of planned obsolescence, they took devices that would otherwise have to be replaced due to shut downs and allow them to remain in service.

marcosdumay 6y ago
The other option Apple had here was notifying people their battery was bad, not hiding the throttling, and letting people buy new batteries for a reasonable profit.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  It's not bad though, it's normal, and functioning as expected at that part of the age curve. You can avoid this by reducing performance for the entire time you owned the device so nobody noticed, I guess, but that's all.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > You can avoid this by reducing performance for the entire time you owned the device so nobody noticed, I guess, but that's all. Or you could notify people of the situation, and sell replacement batteries. That would have been the best solution.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Again, the battery is not defective, it is a certain number of years old. That is how batteries perform at a certain age. Batteries are consumable parts like tires and ink cartridges. It's like returning an ink cartridge at 50% capacity because it's only got half the ink left. Yes, that's the point, that's what cartridges do. This feature is designed to always get the most out of a battery. Is that really something to complain about? I guess this is where it's a perspective issue. - You're saying that a new battery starts out at "100%" and that after a year or so, Apple throttles is down to "80%" because it can no longer keep up with how it came out of the factory. Apple designed a function that reduces the performance of a system that's defective to hide the defect. That would be strictly negative. - What I'm saying is that the battery starts out at "120%" out of the factory (which you can confirm, when you buy a new mac check out the Batter mAh vs. design rating in System Report) and eventually drifts towards "100%" over time. Apple designed a system that allows you to get that extra 20% at the start, when it's available. That would be strictly positive.
      - Nullabillity 6y ago
        An ink cartridge at 50% still performs about the same as at 100%, it's just got less life in it. A better comparison would be an unevenly worn toner cartridge, where someone keeps going "I don't see the problem, it prints just fine on the sides!".
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > That is how batteries perform at a certain age. Ok, and customers should still be informed of whatever it is that you think the situation is, and they should be allowed to purchase a replacement. > This feature is designed to always get the most out of a battery. Is that really something to complain about? They should have still told the customer and allowed people to buy a replacement. > I guess this is where it's a perspective issue. No. My perspective is not that. Instead my perspective is that the consumer should have been told about that, and offered the ability to buy a replacement.
webmobdev 6y ago
> I really don’t understand the criticism. Then you are being deliberately obtuse as many here have already explained that this case was never about the throttling. Quoting another user (Karunamon): > Again, it's not that Apple didn't violate the laws of physics on their "magical" device, it's that they: > 1. Applied the throttling fix silently 2. Denied warranty replacements 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device. Basically they were slowing down people's device, without informing them, and forcing them to buy new devices as they refused to replace the battery even when customers were willing to pay for a new battery!
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Ok that's fine but... > 1. Applied the throttling fix silently I would maintain that the device that didn't throttle, taking into account the real capabilities of the battery, and instead shut down unexpectedly at 20% was broken. It was fixed by this patch. > 2. Denied warranty replacements. There's as much reason to replace a battery under warranty that has maintained 80% charge capacity after 1000 cycles or 2 years, as there is an ink cartridge starting to run low. Batteries start getting worse after each charge cycle, and my understanding is that they followed the prescribed policy. > 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed. I'm very much against this policy, as a right-to-repair advocate I believe battery replacements should be simple and end-user achievable. Short of that I agree that the replacement should have been carried out on a cost-plus basis on request. > 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device. This is where we disagree except as I replied in (3).
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    Your point was that throttling is better than not working. But that's a false dichotomy. Rather than throttle. You can show less charge. It's what other phones do.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Why would I want the phone to turn off sooner?
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> And yes, at the point where the throttling was taking place, the battery wasn’t defective. Sure, but if I decide I really need a top-shape battery, and I go into an Apple Store and offer to pay full retail price for a new one, shouldn't they give it to me? GP says they were refusing if the battery was above a certain threshold (but low enough that performance adjustments were kicking in.)
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Yep, that I completely agree with. That should not only have been offered, but it should be a user serviceable part.

samstave 6y ago

I had two iPhones with the “balloon battery” problem, after they tested them for speed performance - they reluctantly replaced them even though they were 1 and 2 point Over their threshold even though the batteries were clearly pushing the screen out of the body... Would this count in this case although this was san francisco

unishark 6y ago

Apparently Apple doesn't agree that this is covered under warranty since they have denied wrongdoing (at least last I saw as of the $500M settlement, can't access the latest one).

yoz-y 6y ago
Isn’t battery a consumable and thus not covered by warranty by default? (Unless it has a manufacturing defect)
- kencausey 6y ago
  Is it reasonable to consider an element of a device a consumable if it is not user replaceable?
  - madjam002 6y ago
    No, exactly. I got a free battery replacement on my Macbook Pro after 3 years of having it because the battery was unusable. After going into the Apple store, they said that the battery was a "consumable part" and therefore not covered by the warranty. However, when I asked what the part number was and how I could order a replacement myself, they said that the batteries weren't serviceable and even they had to replace the keyboard unit as that contained the battery and it was all glued together. I pointed out that they've therefore designed this product to fail after a few years as you can't order replacement batteries as a consumer, and they agreed to replace it for free.
    - yoz-y 6y ago
      That is definitely an issue. I guess apple somehow calculated that an occasional free replacement is more economic than not binding the battery to a non-consumable part?
  - snowwrestler 6y ago
    Yes, of course it is. Most users can’t replace tires, spark plugs, or even oil in their cars. Parts are considered consumable if they are reasonably expected to be consumed during normal operation. No court is going to hold a company liable for basic physics.