0.00565% of Apple's $2T market cap.
Does that seem inappropriately high or low for "batterygate?"
Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
11–20 of 266 posts
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#12Yet they're still ignoring Flexgate which affects devices made across a number of years. I paid an arm and a let for a Macbook Pro (that's what they cost in my country), only to have it turned into a paperweight by a manufacturing defect that Apple acknowledges but won't remedy except for devices made in 2016.
https://www.tomsguide.com/news/apple-sued-over-macbook-pro-f...
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/20/apple-faces-another-fle...
https://support.apple.com/13-inch-macbook-pro-display-backli...
EDIT: Astounding to see I'm getting downvotes here. I mean, what kind of mindset must one have to see regular people getting screwed over by a multibillion dollar corporation like this, and then side with the corporation. It boggles the mind.
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#13As usual, it doesn’t seem like the end consumer benefits from these settlements. I would like to see one time where the end user receives a free iPhone if their model was included in the lawsuit.
Free iPhone? You're lucky to get a free battery out of Apple after they got caught.
The batteries weren't free, just $29 instead of $79.
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#14So, I'm somehow developing a pro-Apple bias these days. This whole batterygate to me is kind of based on conjecture-- that Apple slowed old phones with the intention to sell more new ones. If there's any supporting evidence, or anything that's come up in discovery that Apple acted in bad faith, I'd possibly change my (admittedly biased) mind. But really, slowing the phones down to extend battery life is a reasonable…
When there's a rich kid in town, everyone will turn him upside down to see what change falls out of his pockets. Apple is where Apple is because it doesn't put all of its features "out in the open." I don't want 500 config settings for my phone and a lot of other's don't either. If you want to run a webserver on your phone that's cool, there are products for you, but some people want the idiotproof solution.
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#15Ok, how do I um...get that money??
> As part of Wednesday's settlement, $113 million will be distributed among the states, including California, Tennessee and Pennsylvania. The funds will cover attorneys' fees and will be used to fund future consumer protection investigators.
You will get nothing by the looks of it.
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#16So, I'm somehow developing a pro-Apple bias these days. This whole batterygate to me is kind of based on conjecture-- that Apple slowed old phones with the intention to sell more new ones. If there's any supporting evidence, or anything that's come up in discovery that Apple acted in bad faith, I'd possibly change my (admittedly biased) mind. But really, slowing the phones down to extend battery life is a reasonable…
I own an iPhone because I got sick of these kinds of issues I was having with my Pixel phones. (would last ~1yr of perfect bliss. Then the honeymoon ends and the phone would just behave like crap). I decided to give another brand a shot.
I'll tell you what will really tick me off in another year or so... If my device is, without warning, notification, ability to change, etc, purposefully nerfing itself for ANY REASON. That will make me really upset. Especially since I can't just pop the back off and toss a new battery in there.
Good faith or not. It's an anti-consumer move. If my battery even pretended to be removable, you might convince me otherwise. But gluing the battery in under a glued in screen and then throttling my device based on the battery's age... Just really bothers me.
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#17So, I'm somehow developing a pro-Apple bias these days. This whole batterygate to me is kind of based on conjecture-- that Apple slowed old phones with the intention to sell more new ones. If there's any supporting evidence, or anything that's come up in discovery that Apple acted in bad faith, I'd possibly change my (admittedly biased) mind. But really, slowing the phones down to extend battery life is a reasonable…
I think this is the crux of the issue. Apple had to make a call for their customers: ensure the low battery is as long-lasting and predictable as possible around 1-5%, or keep high performance as the phone battery degrades quicker and shuts off. I think many people thoroughly understand how crucial it can be to have that last 1-2% and going into a situation where you think you have 5%, but then the phone dies, is a pretty bad experience for the "premium experience" that Apple sells. So for most customers they made the right call to preserve the battery.
This is an engineering trade-off and not something that typically gets publically broadcast to customers. I'm sure there's lots of other niche feature tweaks like this to the iPhone that we're unaware of. They definitely could've and should've been more transparent about this, but I understand why it didn't occur to them.
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#18So, I'm somehow developing a pro-Apple bias these days. This whole batterygate to me is kind of based on conjecture-- that Apple slowed old phones with the intention to sell more new ones. If there's any supporting evidence, or anything that's come up in discovery that Apple acted in bad faith, I'd possibly change my (admittedly biased) mind. But really, slowing the phones down to extend battery life is a reasonable…
> So, I'm somehow developing a pro-Apple bias these days
Everytime this happens to me, I remind myself to visit their accessories store on the Apple website.
As an example, the new magsafe seems like a clear way to extract more money.
The magsafe charger doesn't have a removable cable and it is a very thin cable which is likely to break after minimal usage.
The iPad's keyboard costs as much as an entry level Ryzen laptop.
Non-upgradable everything so you pay for future-proofing upfront.
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#19So, I'm somehow developing a pro-Apple bias these days. This whole batterygate to me is kind of based on conjecture-- that Apple slowed old phones with the intention to sell more new ones. If there's any supporting evidence, or anything that's come up in discovery that Apple acted in bad faith, I'd possibly change my (admittedly biased) mind. But really, slowing the phones down to extend battery life is a reasonable…
I agree that it's possible they weren't being malicious. The part that gets me is that they didn't decide to instead allow folks to set a max battery charge to extend their battery life. It's pretty widely accepted that charging a battery to 100% over-and-over will cause battery degradation.
It seems fair to me that decisions that are hidden from consumers and obviously degrade the consumer's experience should negatively affect a company (and more than just the loss of goodwill).
Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns
#20Ok, how do I um...get that money??
> As part of Wednesday's settlement, $113 million will be distributed among the states, including California, Tennessee and Pennsylvania. The funds will cover attorneys' fees and will be used to fund future consumer protection investigators. You will get nothing by the looks of it.
Sweet justice. We get scammed, corporate pays a fine, lawyers get rich.