Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

text.npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 266 posts

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#71

Post by epistasis »

darksaints wrote: post #37
Karunamon wrote: post #6

Worth mentioning here is that this wasn't just about the "sneaky" fix for battery degradation, it was about doing this without notice , and having internal tooling that would deny a replacement (even at full retail price) if the battery was above an arbitrary health threshold (but still low enough to cause throttling). Before Apple changed their tune, if you read about this, and went into an Apple store for a replace…

This was exactly what happened to me. My phone slowed down drastically after an update, and so I took it in. They confirmed to me that it was this update that throttled everything if the battery health was degraded "in order to prevent further battery degradation". But when I pointed out to them that my phone was less than a year old and still under warranty, they tested it again and told me my battery didn't meet th…

This is an absolutely terrible customer service story, and IMHO there should definitely be compensation for that. But it also undercuts the "they are trying to make people upgrade" story, because I think nearly any sane person would abandon shop rather than put up with this sort of big-Corp idiocy.

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#72

Post by acdha »

bigbubba wrote: post #42
jolux wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative is that the phone shuts off spontaneously and reboots if power draw gets too high, which also degrades the consumer’s experience and looks a lot scarier and more obviously broken to most people.

Are these really the two options? What about displaying a plainly worded message that explains the situation to the owner, then gives them the choice? Or would that be too confusing and scary for Apple customers?

That's what they added. There's now a full Battery section in the Settings app which shows you your current battery health, whether the life has declined to the point where it is limiting performance, and an optimized charging setting which is enabled by default so the phone won't charge past 80% unless it's at a time of day where your usage history suggests you'll need the full charge.

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#73

Post by xchip »

skunkworker wrote: post #30
CapriciousCptl wrote: post #10

So, 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 believe it wasn't slowing down the phones to extend battery life, it was slowing down the phone's power draw because as the LiPo battery wore out it could no longer give the peak power like it used to. The only real fix was to throttle the phone, which apple did a horrible job communicating on.

The real fix was to tell the truth so people can make better decisions, like buying a new battery.

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#74

Post by Karunamon »

sthnblllII wrote: post #48
cheeze wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree about the confusion, btu the issue AFAICT is more about the fact that they didn't offer consumers any way to rectify the issue

Have the plaintiffs requested some kind of battery notification? Their angle has always been accusing Apple of planned obsolescence, which seems laughable compared to how little long-term support Android phones get.

I think they added that around the time the lawsuit was initially filed. You'll get a popup notice when throttling is applied, you have an option to disable throttling (at risk of shutdowns at low charge), and the health metric is exposed in settings now.

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#75

Post by xchip »

fiblye wrote: post #51
yreg wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before this the old iPhones used to randomly reboot when the battery wasn’t able to keep them alive. (I had such phone.) I don’t think slowing it down is “nerfing” compared to that. I speak also as someone who used an old iPhone 6 which was slowed down this way. Btw they throttled based on battery health, not age.

Yeah I definitely had that experience a few times. Using the maps on my phone in a different country where nobody spoke my language and I didn't speak theirs with 25% battery life and having it suddenly shut down wasn't the funnest moment of my life.

You would have bought a new battery, not a new phone

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#76

Post by Karunamon »

bgirard wrote: post #40
filoleg wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are correct in a sense that it was doing it "without notice". But they had a good reason to do the slowdowns, no malice needed, their one and only big mistake here was doing it without a notice. The reason they did it was to prevent battery degradation and bad battery life by throttling the CPU. Except back then, iPhone CPUs weren't overperforming monsters they are today, so the slowdown was fairly noticeable. A…

Karunamon made a very specific claim in this thread that I quoted. Your response doesn't discuss this claim. I'm interested in what data we have backing that claim.

Nothing you'll be interested in, only very many stories of people taking their phones in once the throttling news dropped (IIRC, with accompanying geekbench scores showing the effect quantifiably), and being told to pound sand. A couple are downthread.

Besides, it's not as if this is a strange policy. Apple never has arbitrarily replaced phone parts by user request, even with cash in hand, unless the techs could point to a specific problem. Try walking into an Apple store today and ask for a new screen without an obvious problem.. you will not get one.

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#77

Post by jolux »

bigbubba wrote: post #69
jolux wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I say Apple was a victim? No. They should have notified people. But the conspiracy theories are silly, as are people who act like there isn’t a clearly correct default behavior in this case.

Okay, then we agree the comment I responded to presented a false dichotomy.

You said that their decision obviously degrades the user experience. They were dealing with an engineering trade off and picked the side that didn’t risk data loss. I contend that that’s better than the alternative, irrespective of whether or not they tell people what’s going on.

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#78

Post by gpm »

xchip wrote: post #70
gpm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't the only cost. There was also another $500 million us settlement, a $27 million dollar fine from France, and probably others, and probably more outstanding liability.

fines should be measured in $ per user.

I agree... but I don't care enough to figure out how many users are actually covered under each of those fines (under the relevant jurisdiction and having bought the relevant product).

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#79

Post by yyyk »

jolux wrote: post #77
bigbubba wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, then we agree the comment I responded to presented a false dichotomy.

You said that their decision obviously degrades the user experience. They were dealing with an engineering trade off and picked the side that didn’t risk data loss. I contend that that’s better than the alternative, irrespective of whether or not they tell people what’s going on.

You're ignoring the point that these weren't the only two choices - even after both 'invisible' and 'bigbubba' suggested alternatives (admittedly not as profitable for Apple).

Re: Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case over iPhone Slowdowns

#80

Post by djmobley »

bgirard wrote: post #29
Karunamon wrote: post #6

Worth mentioning here is that this wasn't just about the "sneaky" fix for battery degradation, it was about doing this without notice , and having internal tooling that would deny a replacement (even at full retail price) if the battery was above an arbitrary health threshold (but still low enough to cause throttling). Before Apple changed their tune, if you read about this, and went into an Apple store for a replace…

> it was about doing this without notice, and having internal tooling that would deny a replacement (even at full retail price) if the battery was above an arbitrary health threshold (but still low enough to cause throttling). Do you have a source for that? This would change my opinion on this story. Reminds me of hot coffee where it sounded a bit ridiculous until you got the full story.

> Do you have a source for that? This would change my opinion on this story.

I can vouch for this. My iPhone 6 was under 2 years old and had 82% battery health according to the Apple diagnostics when I experienced the unexpected shutdowns.

The shutdowns were frequent (at least once per day) and, because the phone had to be plugged in before it could be restarted, were incredibly frustrating.

I took it to an Apple Store. The Genius refused to acknowledge any fault. They ran the diagnostics which showed 82% and refused to replace the battery, even if I paid, as it was above their 80% threshold for replacement.

I spoke to the manager, and they stood firm. No replacement, even if I paid. I was extremely persistent and they simply would not budge.

The throttling resolved my shutdown problem.

Post reply on HN