261–270 of 287 posts
They are expected to fine a standard amount based on a certain case and this amount should be big enough for all companies to avoid the thing in future, but at the same time not bankrupt the company either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need for checkboxes. Or offloading decisions on the customer. It's simple. Don't hide what you're doing. Either a notice in the UI, or even a press release at minimum. Something.
There are probably thousands of design decisions that go into making a phone like this. Who is supposed to decide which ones get a notice and which ones don't? Apple probably already has some sort of organization that deals with these communication issues. Is this fine a reasonable punishment for getting one thing wrong?
The ones that change a feature after the phone is sold when that feature was prominently marketed to consumers is a safe minimum threshold for what you need to notify your customers of.
If they changed it after 6 months because of a battery design flaw, there would be a class action lawsuit for false advertising. Natural processes that all batteries exhibit that cause them to degrade are fine, and nothing to get up in arms about, but a third party "fixing" the problem for you without letting you know they did so (or giving you the option to opt out) is both not expected, and for many people, not wanted.
It's like buying some high-end car with a supercharger, and a few years later you take it in for a service and the service technicians "helpfully" disable your supercharger because it can sometimes cause problems in some circumstances now that the engine is more worn and the tolerances aren't as tight, but decide it's not worth telling you. That might be something you want, but ultimately you should get that choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going after big offenders first is just common sense. France did right to go after Apple first since that would make the biggest splash.
Right. And between going after Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Apple one really has to wonder if "biggest offender" just coincidentally seems to mean the same thing as "non-European offender" or if there's a reason for this pattern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 batte…
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. And between going after Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Apple one really has to wonder if "biggest offender" just coincidentally seems to mean the same thing as "non-European offender" or if there's a reason for this pattern.
This seems like an American persecution complex more than anything else. Americans and their corporations seem to think that regulation is persecution.
The argument that customers should have been notified of functionality that strictly improves the usability of the product doesn't make any sense. How does extending the usable life of the phone (even if it is less powerful during the end of the usable life) making consumers more likely to buy new phones? Apple had acknowledged that old batteries could not drive the processor at the highest clock rate long before this became newsworthy. Like I said: if Apple pushed an update removing throttling it would lay bare just how absurd these penalties are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They found a way to cover up an ongoing design flaw in the phone/battery capacity combination. The phones are too powerful for the batteries that Apple uses. Almost no other line of phones has this issue. It is amazing how people twist this situation to make Apple the hero for saving "old" phones.
That's FUD. The phones absolutely did not behave like that when new. And, if the battery is replaced, they go back to their original performance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Going after big offenders first is just common sense. France did right to go after Apple first since that would make the biggest splash.
Right. And between going after Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and now Apple one really has to wonder if "biggest offender" just coincidentally seems to mean the same thing as "non-European offender" or if there's a reason for this pattern.
What irrationality, twisting everything to be some secret anti-US agenda than to just assume/see the obvious that the big players are the big offenders and they happen to be US players (for now).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine if, to avoid damage to engine parts, engines would keep their heat limits in safe zones to not blow up when friction goes up. Imagine if, when you don't tune up your car, it starts running, factually, with less horsepower. You do lose X horsepower every 1000 miles. You get it back with your tuneup. Which involves changing the oil. You lose X MHz every Y% of battery discharge capacity lost. You get it back wit…
Did Apple turn the "check engine" light on?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah you're right. Just did a quick google for profit and can see it's actually revenue I got back. OK, so it's 2 and a half hours.
Yeah, I know, but as I mentioned it's a deceptive way of looking at things. Every 0.1% matters to companies at this scale.
Or at least how much would they have made if no one had noticed and they didn’t have to do the $25 battery replacement program. I would guess A LOT more than this fine.