make it hurt
Why do these states, countries impose such small fines. If you are going to fine a couple like that, make it hurt as otherwise they will just write those values off as an expense
The UK’s Competition Appeal Tribunal has allowed a case to proceed in which Apple will be accused of misleading iPhone users about the state of their smartphone batteries, potentially exposing Apple to a billion-dollar payout. Led by market researcher Justin Gutmann, the lawsuit claims that Apple unlawfully deceived consumers …
The fines seem small because most of these states apply the concept of compensatory damages within their legal systems, and that's tied to the actual harm caused. And let's face it, the overwhelming majority of affected iPhone users wouldn't have noticed a thing.
The UK does allow for additional "exemplary" damages in some cases, but compared to the way some US states apply punitive damages they don't amount to anything. I'd guess the European courts are generally similar in that area, even allowing the fundamental differences between countries' legal systems.
Personally I think the US legal system is fundamentally broken, and although you might think that in this instance Apple should have been fined more, I'd suggest there's far more downsides than upsides to the way the US does law. The only people who get rich are the lawyers, and the "victims" often get diddly squat.
and that's tied to the actual harm caused. And let's face it, the overwhelming majority of affected iPhone users wouldn't have noticed a thing.
If these actions cause virtually no harm (from legal point of view) then what is the point to have legislation in the first place?
Let me guess. Lawyers got to eat.
Actually, the second option is these laws exist to keep competition at bay. Imagine small business doing what Apple or other giants do. The mere mention of the incoming lawsuit would have bankrupted the company, so smaller businesses won't even touch anything that could trigger those.
This means the laws themselves are corrupt.
Or maybe those small business would have thought that it wouldn't be worth the risk trying to screw over their customers, whereas the big firms know they have the legal resources to put these sorts of claims off for an eternity and then only face a relative pittance of a fine if it eventually gets that far.
Or maybe those small business would have thought that it wouldn't be worth the risk trying to screw over their customers
That's what I am talking about. The laws are not designed to stop corporations from screwing over their customers, but only letting the big ones do it and have all the pie to themselves.
That is the definition of corruption.
So you are saying it would be less corrupt if the law allowed small businesses to ignore it as well and screw over their customers willy-nilly, rather than just mega corps who have the legal wherewithal to take on nation state legislators?
Apologies, my calendar mistakenly says 2 November - I hadn't realised that it was 1 April.
"Hurt" in this respect is a Legal Term. No one was physically harmed (in the creation of this post)
A 'hurt' can include a mere inconvenience. someone barges into the line that you were in thus delaying service by 30seconds... You were hurt and so, sue the living daylights out of them. Take them for every penny that the do and don't own. That is the US way.
Unless you are a [boo hiss] lawyer, all this gobbledygook won't make sense. Add on a sprinkling of Latin just to confuse us plebs, it is little wonder that Trump can burn through $50M (at least) a year in legal fees. BTW, not one bent penny had come from his own money (SOP for a Billionaire in the USA). All his legal work has been funded by his cult members.
There is actually very little Latin in the UK legal system. Laws are written in fairly plain english and the only latin involved is in underlying concepts that are literally thousands of years old, such as that laws should be written so that both "actus rei" ("actually committed the act") and "mens rea" ("deliberately intended to do it") should be present for a crime to have been committed.
Hence you can be playing cricket or football, knock a ball which then breaks a window and you can be actually guilty of breaking the window without committing criminal damage.
Or, for something more IT related let's look at the Computer Misuse Act.
Which says "A person is guilty of an offence if— "
A =true [ANDIF] B = true [ANDIF] C=true
If GuiltyOfOffence= true THEN GOTO section 3 for sentencing.
I would submit that you couldn't actually write it in much more plain english if you tried. To make it impossible to find you guilty you do not need any sprinklings of latin, you simply demonstrate that either condition A, B or C are not valid.
Nope, have some Apple kit and in a previous life, supported a lot of users on their kit.
My comments mean any company that flouts the law or does things like this, afterall, in this case some people will think their phone slowing down means they need to get a new one, nope, not really, it is just your supplier screwing you,.
Fines should be a deterrant and to make it one, you need to size things accordingly.
We're not talking about fines here, we're talking about compensation. What can actually hurt more is legal costs. The legal costs of the other party may be high, but I'll guarantee Apple's own legal costs will be much higher. Companies like Apple don't go to a Claims-R-Us no win no fee firm they will be paying the highest fees for the "best" (as in most expensive) lawyers they can find.
However I do think that this sort of thing should be criminal and as such should attract hefty fines.
"Rolls Royce have just released their new EV."
In my experience of working with exceptionally well paid London lawyers, they aren't given to Flash Harry cars like a Roller, and they'd also be mindful that Rolls Royce Motors is now essentially a trim badge for a top of the range BMW. People who used to own a Ford Granada Ghia will be familiar with the concept.
Most lawyers of my acquaintance generally prefer something understated, like a top end Merc or Audi estate in an unremarkable colour, but with around 600hp under the bonnet.
but with around 600hp under the bonnet.
Because nothing proclaims the calibre of a solicitor quite like a 600hp motor paired with an immaculate driving licence - it's the quintessential metaphor for possessing a rap sheet more pristine than their conscience and a summation more supercharged than their gearbox. It's less about adeptly manoeuvring through the statutes and more about how deftly you can shift gears whilst evading legal snares and speed cameras. After all, who requires 'reasonable doubt' when you're equipped with 'unreasonable horsepower'?
"I can't see every phone owner getting any money. I bet the lawyers do though."
That's the way it usually seems to work, although the article notes that in the US, class members are expected to receive $65 each (which sounds reasonable for a relatively minor defect in a $600 device). I would say that generally speaking the larger the per-user amount the more chance that some effort is made to actually get them the money rather than the US cheap copout of simply donating whatever the lawyers didn't take to the judge's favourite charity
class members are expected to receive $65 each (which sounds reasonable for a relatively minor defect in a $600 device)
It's certainly not a "minor" defect. It was a 40 - 60% slowdown of the device, partly to improve battery life in aging batteries, but more to persuade the iFaithful that they need to buy a new phone. It was a cynical ploy to push sales, and should be punished as such. After all, Apple have a captive market, and they're going to exploit it just as much as they can!
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with throttling; if it really does extend the life of a failing battery.
However, not providing feedback to the user that this is happening and they really need to do something, is clearly wrong.
It would seem by not (deliberately?) warning users Apple missed out on the opportunity to offer battery replacement services and/or upgrade to new iPhone.
Compare this to the HP laptop battery check app which is regularly updated to ensure users of HP battery packs are aware if their particular battery pack is from a batch with an overly large number of faults. In some respects all batteries could be uniquely numbered so that the app could warn about faulty third-party batteries. Perhaps this is something that should be a standard part of the battery management routine.
Agree, why should I replace a functioning phone that may still be receiving updates due to a poor battery, this is just Apple having cake, eating it and making us pick up the bill. No part of any equipment that degrades over time should not be within reason, user replaceable.
Yes there is something wrong with throttling to extend the battery life if you don't give the user choices.
Choice one "Your battery is starting to fail we can slow down your phone to extend your battery life but this will give you a phone so slow as to be almost unusable - would you like us to cripple your phone? Y/N"
Choice two "Your battery is likely to fail. It's just a poxy little lithium cell, would you like to get a local shop to replace it for a few quid or would you prefer to take it to your local Apple store and pay a fortune to maintain a warranty that has either expired already or that we probably won't honour anyway?"
Consumer choice is supposed to be enshrined in law, but it isn't really is it?
I personally agree with you about user choice, but not everyone does. Indeed, I'd argue that Apple's trying to make things easy for the user by reducing choice is what a fair bit of their user base wants and appreciates. You and I should avoid Apple, but that doesn't mean they're evil, they're just not for us.
minus the UK bank's foreign partner bank's fee, UK bank's inter-bonking fee and UK bank's foreign transaction fee. Did I mention UK lawyers' fee somewhere before all this? The rest will be distributed as a 10p off your next apple repair service ticket/voucher, valid until end of the afternoon* Justice has been served again!
I wonder what the massively high standard of proof that it was *you* that purchased the iPhone will be too ? Hopefully in these days of email receipts easily satisfied.
But I bet you are plum out of luck if you have a second hand iPhone. Even from a legitimate retail vendor.
Don't mean a sodding thing. Or at least to Argos they don't. Try getting a refund with just the bank debt and email receipt! Impossible. The cause is their wonky computer systems. It took me going to a lawyer and getting a solicitors letter threatening the county court to get my money and legal costs back.
I'll never shop there again.
This case has always struck me as a bit strange.
As others have pointed out showing that apple actually profited from this action is counterintuitive as they lost out on upgrades and similar. No-one has shown or proven any nefariousness on Apples part merely what appears to have been a poorly communicated effort to improve battery life and stability.
I dont see how ANY sane judge could rule that people have suffered a financial loss from Apples activities, and therefore are due damages. Even if they have suffered a loss there is no way to show its been anything but trivial.
This stinks of a monetisation play by greedy lawyers rather than any pro-active consumer led action.
Indeed, the telling part of the Tribunal's judgement is, "There remains a lack of clarity and specificity in the PCR's case."
I've had, and managed, phones covered by the case, I have not noticed any detrimental effects or had any such effects reported by the users. In performance terms our usage is relatively low (does anyone ever really notice the performance unless they're playing games?) so any extension of battery life would be welcomed.
That's quite charitable towards Apple. They have a history of borderline-gaslighting the user when people start noticing their product limitations, like claiming display replacement issues on iPhones were down to shoddy third party components until someone took the time to swap them between two brand new iPhones.
In this case, the throttling is less likely to be immediately attributable to the OS than reduced battery life or crashes (caused by an aged battery being too weak to support full CPU speeds) and could easily be attributed to poorly written applications. This insulates them from immediate negative publicity and the risk of having to pay for bulk battery replacements. As per usual, they're fairly arrogant about the possibility of being caught in the act.
I dont see how ANY sane judge could rule that people have suffered a financial loss from Apples activities, and therefore are due damages. Even if they have suffered a loss there is no way to show its been anything but trivial.
Surely showing a loss is easy. My phone appeared to be working slowly, and could no longer keep up with my apps, so I bought a new one. As opposed to, my batterly life started dropping, so I bought a power bank.
For example my old iPad 1 really didn't like iOS 5. It became almost unusable. Whereas if I'd had the option to keep it on iOS 4, it would have been much faster - though I would have started to lose access to newer apps. That's a trade-off I should have made the decision on, not Apple!
Similarly with a phone, you can't complain that the battery is getting worse over time. That happens. It's also relatively transparent to the user, and depending on how heavily you use the thing, you might chuck it to one of the kids and buy a new one. Or if you're a light user, just remember to charge it more often, or get a power bank. Hiding that battery loss by making the phone slower is both dishonest - and makes it harder for the user to know what's going on. And I don't think I'm being overly cynical to suggest that Apple were hoping for the users to say, "phone's too slow now, time for an upgrade!" Which they might otherwise have held off until, until battery life become worse.
I'm not including the replaceable batteries thing here, because the non replaceable ones do allow them to make the phones smaller. So even though that's also a benefit to Apple in selling phones that might otherwise be upgraded, there's at least a rationale to that decision. Even if I don't like it.
When the HFS+ to APFS transition happened and everything ran like ass, the very first thing Apple support checked for me was battery age. So on the one hand, people who try to do their own proactive maintenance and believe support to be useless would have been burned badly by this issue, but those who called support and then followed basic 1st line all the way through would have either received a battery replacement or otherwise resolved their issue via wiping via iTunes (the latter fixing performance for me).
The real use of the throttling was to make sure phones didn’t “just turn off” in emergency scenarios when they still reported 20% or more charge. Hindsight shows the BlackBerry approach may have been better, of shutting everything (except emergency calling) off much earlier than the true point of low battery when a battery is unhealthy. I don’t remember anyone successfully suing BB for robbing them of their extra charge and such a safety measure probably had saved lives too.