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

61–70 of 266 posts

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

#61

Post by jolux »

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?

Crashing has implications for data integrity which laypeople do not fully understand to this day, despite it having been a problem for the entire history of computing. I don’t think giving users a choice between potentially catastrophic failure and inconvenience is wise. Notifying them of the slowdown is a good idea, and these days you can go into the settings to turn off the slowdown manually, but I think making people look for it is a good idea.

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

#62

Post by darksaints »

Bud wrote: post #57
epistasis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yikes, how many phones did this affect after only a few months? That's an entirely new thing that I hadn't heard before.

Approximately zero. And obviously, those would have been covered under warranty. The reason you haven't heard this before is that it didn't happen.

They weren't covered under my warranty.

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

#63

Post by bigbubba »

jolux wrote: post #61
bigbubba wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Crashing has implications for data integrity which laypeople do not fully understand to this day, despite it having been a problem for the entire history of computing. I don’t think giving users a choice between potentially catastrophic failure and inconvenience is wise. Notifying them of the slowdown is a good idea, and these days you can go into the settings to turn off the slowdown manually, but I think making peo…

Even if you think customers shouldn't be given a choice, there is still no excuse for not informing the users of the situation.

Apple is not a victim here.

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

#64

Post by xchip »

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…

So what? You can still recalibrate the battery estimator and show that the battery each time last less, hiding that was bad faith, and you saying this shows bad fairh too.

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

#65

Post by yyyk »

reducesuffering wrote: post #17
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 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 p…

You're talking about 'transparency' but as the article points out, Apple flat-out denied the issue existed.

Apple had a call to make: Inform the users of the battery issue, or deny the issue and reap extra sales from iPhone replacements. That's not an 'engineering trade-off' but a ripoff.

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

#66

Post by kstrauser »

bgorman wrote: post #45
1123581321 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I experienced it as well and this isn’t true either. The throttling was significant (40%, rough ballpark) but the phones were usable. A game that played that poorly would not have run well at full power. Maps and messaging was functional. They should have communicated the change, in case that qualification is needed.

Have you ever considered that multiple generations of phones were effected by this issue and your single anecdote doesn't describe the full spectrum of behavior. I don't appreciate being called a liar, especially about an issue that personally effected me to the point I left the Apple ecosystem for years. (I gave up my iPhone before the revelations, but I am 100% sure in retrospect I was being throttled)

I don't think the person you were replying to called you a liar. They just had a different experience than yours.

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

#67

Post by jolux »

bigbubba wrote: post #63
jolux wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crashing has implications for data integrity which laypeople do not fully understand to this day, despite it having been a problem for the entire history of computing. I don’t think giving users a choice between potentially catastrophic failure and inconvenience is wise. Notifying them of the slowdown is a good idea, and these days you can go into the settings to turn off the slowdown manually, but I think making peo…

Even if you think customers shouldn't be given a choice, there is still no excuse for not informing the users of the situation. Apple is not a victim here.

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.

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

#69

Post by bigbubba »

jolux wrote: post #67
bigbubba wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you think customers shouldn't be given a choice, there is still no excuse for not informing the users of the situation. Apple is not a victim here.

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.

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

#70

Post by xchip »

gpm wrote: post #32
ptudan wrote: post #8

As of two years ago, apple had sold 2.2 BILLION iphones. The cost of this scam per phone was $.05.

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.
Post reply on HN