4 ms·

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
      It’s funny, you seem to be a stickler for the word “fine” and not for the word “defective”.
      - foldr 3y ago
        To me the word 'defective' in this context implies a manufacturing defect, or some kind of degradation in performance beyond that which would typically be expected through normal use. My point is just that the batteries were not defective in that sense.

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
    It’s funny, you seem to be a stickler for the word “fine” and not for the word “defective”.
    - foldr 3y ago
      To me the word 'defective' in this context implies a manufacturing defect, or some kind of degradation in performance beyond that which would typically be expected through normal use. My point is just that the batteries were not defective in that sense.