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

151–160 of 266 posts

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

#151

Post by iamcreasy »

markdown wrote: post #12

Yet 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-f…

I upvoted you. I have had people downvoting me as well for sharing an experience with Lenovo where they took about 100 days to repair my motherboard within warranty period. Sigh.

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

#152

Post by Ygg2 »

arcticbull wrote: post #144
webmobdev wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don’t understand the criticism. Then you are being deliberately obtuse as many here have already explained that this case was never about the throttling. Quoting another user (Karunamon): > Again, it's not that Apple didn't violate the laws of physics on their "magical" device, it's that they: > 1. Applied the throttling fix silently 2. Denied warranty replacements 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with…

Ok that's fine but... > 1. Applied the throttling fix silently I would maintain that the device that didn't throttle, taking into account the real capabilities of the battery, and instead shut down unexpectedly at 20% was broken. It was fixed by this patch. > 2. Denied warranty replacements. There's as much reason to replace a battery under warranty that has maintained 80% charge capacity after 1000 cycles or 2 years…

Your point was that throttling is better than not working.

But that's a false dichotomy.

Rather than throttle. You can show less charge. It's what other phones do.

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

#153

Post by Wowfunhappy »

arcticbull wrote: post #116
Karunamon wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, it's not that Apple didn't violate the laws of physics on their "magical" device, it's that they: 1. Applied the throttling fix silently 2. Denied warranty replacements 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device.

The other option Apple had at their disposal was basically to throttle the device literally all the time so that even when the battery was old the phone would never draw enough current to trigger a brown out condition. Instead what they did was make the most power possible available from the battery at all times, and yes that changed over time. This seems like a much better alternative. I really don’t understand the…

> And yes, at the point where the throttling was taking place, the battery wasn’t defective.

Sure, but if I decide I really need a top-shape battery, and I go into an Apple Store and offer to pay full retail price for a new one, shouldn't they give it to me? GP says they were refusing if the battery was above a certain threshold (but low enough that performance adjustments were kicking in.)

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

#154

Post by samstave »

Karunamon wrote: post #84
aetherspawn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi, Battery engineer here at an electric vehicle company. The crux of it is this: when you draw high current from a small battery, the voltage will sag (1). The manufacturer has an on-board battery management system that MUST turn off the battery if it goes below a certain voltage threshold. As the battery ages, the sag effect increases significantly, up to 2-3x. Thus, when your phone clearly indicates say 20% batter…

Again, it's not that Apple didn't violate the laws of physics on their "magical" device, it's that they: 1. Applied the throttling fix silently 2. Denied warranty replacements 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device.

I had two iPhones with the “balloon battery” problem, after they tested them for speed performance - they reluctantly replaced them even though they were 1 and 2 point Over their threshold even though the batteries were clearly pushing the screen out of the body...

Would this count in this case although this was san francisco

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

#155

Post by arcticbull »

Ygg2 wrote: post #152
arcticbull wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok that's fine but... > 1. Applied the throttling fix silently I would maintain that the device that didn't throttle, taking into account the real capabilities of the battery, and instead shut down unexpectedly at 20% was broken. It was fixed by this patch. > 2. Denied warranty replacements. There's as much reason to replace a battery under warranty that has maintained 80% charge capacity after 1000 cycles or 2 years…

Your point was that throttling is better than not working. But that's a false dichotomy. Rather than throttle. You can show less charge. It's what other phones do.

Why would I want the phone to turn off sooner?

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

#156

Post by arcticbull »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #153
arcticbull wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other option Apple had at their disposal was basically to throttle the device literally all the time so that even when the battery was old the phone would never draw enough current to trigger a brown out condition. Instead what they did was make the most power possible available from the battery at all times, and yes that changed over time. This seems like a much better alternative. I really don’t understand the…

> And yes, at the point where the throttling was taking place, the battery wasn’t defective. Sure, but if I decide I really need a top-shape battery, and I go into an Apple Store and offer to pay full retail price for a new one, shouldn't they give it to me? GP says they were refusing if the battery was above a certain threshold (but low enough that performance adjustments were kicking in.)

Yep, that I completely agree with. That should not only have been offered, but it should be a user serviceable part.

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

#157

Post by ashtonkem »

aetherspawn wrote: post #43
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…

Hi, Battery engineer here at an electric vehicle company. The crux of it is this: when you draw high current from a small battery, the voltage will sag (1). The manufacturer has an on-board battery management system that MUST turn off the battery if it goes below a certain voltage threshold. As the battery ages, the sag effect increases significantly, up to 2-3x. Thus, when your phone clearly indicates say 20% batter…

This doesn't actually feel like it's responding to GP, which was actually about how Apple treated the customer and not the realities of batteries.

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

#158

Post by Dylan16807 »

arcticbull wrote: post #148
stale2002 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This issue impacts literally every phone ever sold. No, actually, most phones did not release an update like this, deny the situation, and then also refused to let people purchase replacement batteries. The issue is that Apple did this update, did not tell people about the whole thing, however you want to describe it, and then also did not allow people to buy replacement batteries.

All that tells me is that other phones aren't getting the most out of new batteries, and are instead limiting themselves to the performance of an old battery. But yes, I agree, they should have permitted replacements - in fact replacements should have been permitted at home. Batteries deserve to be user serviceable.

> All that tells me is that other phones aren't getting the most out of new batteries, and are instead limiting themselves to the performance of an old battery.

That's only one possible explanation.

Imagine two phones that can both draw 5 watts max. Phone A has a battery that can supply 5 watts brand new, and phone B has a battery that can supply 10 watts brand new.

It's true that phone A is "getting the most out of new batteries", and phone B isn't. But phone B isn't "limiting itself to the performance of an old battery". The 5 watt limit is there for efficiency and heat reasons, and it just so happens that the battery is never the limiting factor.

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

#159

Post by Dylan16807 »

arcticbull wrote: post #145
greggman3 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's imagine it's a electric car. The car goes 70mph when you buy it. Suddenly it only runs at 45mph. You want to buy a new battery to fix it but the car company refuses even though you're willing to pay. Why should you have to put up with a car that only goes 45mph when it went 70mph when you bought it? What part of this is hard to understand. I don't want a phone that runs slow.

It's different in that the electric car is marketed as capable of achieving 70mph, Apple does not market iOS devices in terms of performance. No promises were made in that regard - at all, IIRC.

Consumer expectations matter. People would be rightfully mad if cars changed in performance after you test drove them, after all, even with no explicit promises.

And Apple does advertise benchmarks on their slides.

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

#160

Post by bredren »

Ygg2 wrote: post #152
arcticbull wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok that's fine but... > 1. Applied the throttling fix silently I would maintain that the device that didn't throttle, taking into account the real capabilities of the battery, and instead shut down unexpectedly at 20% was broken. It was fixed by this patch. > 2. Denied warranty replacements. There's as much reason to replace a battery under warranty that has maintained 80% charge capacity after 1000 cycles or 2 years…

Your point was that throttling is better than not working. But that's a false dichotomy. Rather than throttle. You can show less charge. It's what other phones do.

All MacBooks throttle performance when heat gets too high. It prevents unnecessary damage to the chip and battery.

We can all hear the fans spin up and usually we know why. We also know the machine is going to slow down.

The difference on iPhone is there was no precedent and user expectation for this behavior. Apple did not offer a setting for this, though I imagine if they did almost everyone would have turned it on.

Should Apple have explained this up front? Yes. Should they have replaced people’s batteries? Yes.

Was this a 100 million dollar set of mistakes? Probably not. Probably much more in the loss of good will.

I agree w the poster elsewhere this is a marketing and customer support problem.

Sometimes apple makes mistakes and lose in court to great humiliation, like when they tried to force Apple Store employees not get paid to follow their security requirements.

I think it’s good to keep the company on its toes, but this particular case seems pretty mild to me.

Post reply on HN