4 ms·

I’m curious why apple didn’t just let folks turn this off if they were so upset. Their phones would have died and apple would get another sale. Make the turn of

I’m curious why apple didn’t just let folks turn this off if they were so upset. Their phones would have died and apple would get another sale. Make the turn off permanent- once opted out no going back. Off all the “gates” this one seemed a bit underwhelming

Podgajski 3y ago
Because by throttling the phone, they could blame all the new “powerful apps” instead of their defective batteries.
- foldr 3y ago
  The batteries weren’t defective. They were just aging normally.
  - ysleepy 3y ago
    One is however solved more easily, replacing the battery for 80 bucks. The other necessitates a new device for 800 bucks. Apple benefits from hiding the cheaper fix in order to make $$$. The mechanism might be technically reasonable, but intentionally misleading customers is not.
  - pi-e-sigma 3y ago
    If that was the case Apple wouldn't have deployed the stealthy 'fix' and instead just said 'your battery is old and hence sometimes turns your phone off unexpectedly. But it's normal'. It clearly shows that the battery aging wasn't considered normal
    - foldr 3y ago
      Sorry, I don’t see the logic here. Any battery will be able to supply less peak current as it ages. Throttling the SoC is clearly a better solution than just having the device randomly brown out. Fundamentally, that’s why it’s the solution that Apple adopted. We can speculate about Apple’s motives. My point was just that the batteries were not defective.
      - Podgajski 3y ago
        Yes, an apple is humble and that’s why they didn’t tell anyone they were doing it. And that’s why they’re also paying a fine for it.
        foldr 3y ago
        I didn’t make any claim about Apple’s motives. I just said that the batteries weren’t defective. Also, this isn’t a fine, it’s a settlement.
        Podgajski 3y ago
        Why do you keep saying they weren’t defective, because they said so? https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/11/01/apple-must-face-lawsuit-alleging-it-throttled-iphones-to-cover-up-defective-batteries-uk-tribunal-rules/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/11/01/apple-... “ Apple Must Face Lawsuit Alleging It 'Throttled' IPhones To Cover Up Defective Batteries, U.K. Tribunal Rules” Fine settlement potato potatoe
        foldr 3y ago
        There are no magical batteries that can supply the same peak current after two years' worth of charge cycles as on day one. There was no manufacturing defect in the batteries. The batteries were only 'defective' in the sense that their performance had reduced as the result of a completely normal aging process. The same thing happens to the batteries in all other phones. The only differences lie in how phones deal with this in software. As the raw physical performance of the battery degrades, this always involves some kind of compromise. Some people didn't like the compromise Apple chose and how they chose (not) to communicate it. But that's not a debate I'm trying to get into here. >Fine settlement potato potatoe It's quite different. A fine is something you'd get for violating some kind of regulation. This is a lawsuit that Apple settled.
        Podgajski 3y ago
oldgradstudent 3y ago
Because they would have had a class action suit for selling phones that only last a year or so. It is far easier to notice a phone that dies in you than something as vague as it progressively becoming slower. It looks to me they simply hoped nobody would notice it was intentional.

Podgajski 3y ago

Because by throttling the phone, they could blame all the new “powerful apps” instead of their defective batteries.

foldr 3y ago
The batteries weren’t defective. They were just aging normally.
- ysleepy 3y ago
  One is however solved more easily, replacing the battery for 80 bucks. The other necessitates a new device for 800 bucks. Apple benefits from hiding the cheaper fix in order to make $$$. The mechanism might be technically reasonable, but intentionally misleading customers is not.
- pi-e-sigma 3y ago
  If that was the case Apple wouldn't have deployed the stealthy 'fix' and instead just said 'your battery is old and hence sometimes turns your phone off unexpectedly. But it's normal'. It clearly shows that the battery aging wasn't considered normal
  - foldr 3y ago
    Sorry, I don’t see the logic here. Any battery will be able to supply less peak current as it ages. Throttling the SoC is clearly a better solution than just having the device randomly brown out. Fundamentally, that’s why it’s the solution that Apple adopted. We can speculate about Apple’s motives. My point was just that the batteries were not defective.
    - Podgajski 3y ago
      Yes, an apple is humble and that’s why they didn’t tell anyone they were doing it. And that’s why they’re also paying a fine for it.
      - foldr 3y ago
        I didn’t make any claim about Apple’s motives. I just said that the batteries weren’t defective. Also, this isn’t a fine, it’s a settlement.
        Podgajski 3y ago
        Why do you keep saying they weren’t defective, because they said so? https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/11/01/apple-must-face-lawsuit-alleging-it-throttled-iphones-to-cover-up-defective-batteries-uk-tribunal-rules/amp/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/willskipworth/2023/11/01/apple-... “ Apple Must Face Lawsuit Alleging It 'Throttled' IPhones To Cover Up Defective Batteries, U.K. Tribunal Rules” Fine settlement potato potatoe
        foldr 3y ago
        There are no magical batteries that can supply the same peak current after two years' worth of charge cycles as on day one. There was no manufacturing defect in the batteries. The batteries were only 'defective' in the sense that their performance had reduced as the result of a completely normal aging process. The same thing happens to the batteries in all other phones. The only differences lie in how phones deal with this in software. As the raw physical performance of the battery degrades, this always involves some kind of compromise. Some people didn't like the compromise Apple chose and how they chose (not) to communicate it. But that's not a debate I'm trying to get into here. >Fine settlement potato potatoe It's quite different. A fine is something you'd get for violating some kind of regulation. This is a lawsuit that Apple settled.
        Podgajski 3y ago

oldgradstudent 3y ago

Because they would have had a class action suit for selling phones that only last a year or so. It is far easier to notice a phone that dies in you than something as vague as it progressively becoming slower. It looks to me they simply hoped nobody would notice it was intentional.