Apple rummages through pockets, hands out $113m in change to US states to make iPhone slowdown row go away Apple has agreed to pay $113m to settle a lawsuit with multiple US states that said the tech giant unfairly hobbled the performance of millions of iPhones. After users started complaining that their apps were slowing down, the iGiant claimed it would never degrade the operation of its wares. But that turned out to be a big fat …
I've noticed several IOS updates in the last year which seemed to kill battery life, although both seemed to be quickly fixed by subsequent updates. I'm assuming these were just standard programming cockups, rather than some conspiracy to get me to buy a new phone.
Have you actually read any of the many, many articles about this particular update?
Yes, sometimes there are cockups leading to subsequent update fixes. This was not one of those. It was a deliberate and targeted attempt to get users of older models to upgrade, by artificially limiting performance under the guise of protecting battery life.
Actually, I was referring to my personal experience in the last year, not the particular episode referenced in the article.I didn't even own an iPhone at the time of that fiasco. And yes, I have read many articles about the update referenced, including articles in El Reg and elsewhere. However, I thought it was interesting that recent experiences have been just the opposite problem - rather than battery life being extended and the phone slowed down, the battery life was basically halved. Obviously, you don't find my experience interesting (similar to my thoughts on your comment, but I digress).
Except that it not only did protect battery life, but it fixed the issue that people were having where their phones were rebooting when the voltage dropped too low because of a dead battery.
The throttling wasn’t the issue. The big issue was that iOS should have flagged up a message explaining that the battery was shot and that it was being throttled because of it.
If people replaced the battery, the throttling went away. So how was it to force people to upgrade?
"So how was it to force people to upgrade?"
Two ways. First way you already pointed out: "The big issue was that iOS should have flagged up a message explaining that the battery was shot". If they hide that information, it's logical that they might have hidden it so some people would buy a new phone instead of a new battery. The second issue is that most devices aren't built in such a way that their batteries become shot just after the warranty expires. One could assume they did that on purpose so people would have to buy something pretty soon, and hid the information to try to make as many of those somethings as possible a new iPhone. I choose to believe that issue 2 was a design flaw and issue 1 was being too proud to admit the design flaw, but the argument that it was intentional has a lot of logic to it.
So they "slowed down" old phones to make users buy new ones ... and they can be sued? Can I sue them for speeding up the new phones to make users buy the new phones?
I was going to add the joke icon but then I thought, so what does the new faster phone do? Yes it does run faster ... and in the background what's it doing? It's sorting through your data, location, apps running, motion and sounds in the background and sending you new adverts.
Not sure which part of your comment was intended as the joke, so in case it wasn't the first question, there's a major difference between improving a product and degrading a different one. One encourages people to buy by giving them a better option. One is akin to deliberate vandalism of someone else's property in an effort to get them to buy something new, which is, in fact, a crime. When it's done by planned obsolescence, it's a crime with a much lighter penalty, but still a crime.
Apple argues that the information about the different antennae was available on third-party websites.
Is that the modern equivalent of the "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard."?
When I buy something, I should not have to go to an external site to find out the relevant details. Surely thats what YOUR site is for....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
