Apple wants plaintiffs’ lawyers in iPhone throttling case kicked out

11 Comments

1. MDN: “…it was Apple’s lack of communication that was the problem…”

   The assertion here (and it’s not a crazy one) is that it was a CHOICE of communication, not a lack.

   MDN: “If Apple had clearly explained what was going on in the software…”

   Not only did they not “clearly” explain it, they completely failed to disclose it.

   MDN: “…we were pretty much left to assume that the processor/RAM wasn’t up to par…and we’d naturally recommend getting a new iPhone.”

   Which would be bad enough if true, but instead, when customers brought their phones to Apple for service, they were not told about the throttling and were told that their phones were not up to snuff and encouraged to buy a new phone as a remedy.

   MDN, please do not try to paper over this or excuse it. This was not an accident. It was as intentionally deceptive as Nest’s undisclosed microphone. If you believe Apple “poorly communicated” this (to their massive profit), then you must also believe that there was “an oversight” in Nest’s product documentation.

   Stop it. Apple F’ed its customers and is (and should) pay the price.

   Reply

   1. So much BS on this, Apple throttled to prevent serious damage and safety precautions, lose-lose proposition trying to convince ambulance chasers and know-it-alls, including MDN.

      Reply

      1. To prevent serious damage their poor design made possible!
         And still they didn’t inform. The battery, due to size restrictions could not support the claimed performance in the long term.

         Ever wonder why that model year’s iPad did not have the problem?

         Reply

      2. Apple’s reason for implementing the behavior is irrelevant. An engineer had a good idea about how to solve an engineering problem. Nice!

         Apple’s actions after implementing it ARE relevant.
         – Don’t disclose the addition of throttling behavior in release notes for the product.
         – Don’t disclose the known reason & known $100 remedy for the unwanted behavior when the phone is presented for service.
         – DO push a new $800 device purchase as a remedy for the unwanted behavior when the phone is presented for service.

         Reply

      3. And the bottom line is this same, Apple should’ve stated that in the release notes. Pure and simple. You are wrong

         Reply

      4. Apple did wrong.
         They may have had good engineering intentions, and may (?) even have had good user interface intentions (don’t confuse people by explaining throttling). But, they HAD to know that people were buying new iPhones because the old ones seemed slow. I’ve seen some incompetent actions by Apple, but there’s no way they weren’t analyzing why people bought new phones.
         So, the initial actions may have been based on doing what they thought was best for customers, but at some point they had to have realized the outcome is that people were spending more money buying new phones sooner than they would have otherwise. That’s a deceptive trade practice. Maybe a court won’t make them pay for it, but they definitely deserve a hit to their reputation.

         The best way to keep Apple as one of the more customer-friendly corporations is to judge them harshly when they do wrong. I want to push them to do better, since I like their products.

         Reply

         1. Agreed, though I tend not to give them the benefit of the doubt in terms of “at some point they had to have realized…” A decision was made at the get-go not to disclose this, and there is only one reason to make that decision.

            Generously, let’s say it wasn’t a decision that was presented to / signed off on by the CEO, and if not, then the responsible parties must be held accountable by Apple (presumably sent walking) and Apple Inc., nonetheless must be held to the fire for letting it happen.

            If Cook did OK it, then the board must do their duty.

         2. I just want to add to what you said. The problem is even deeper. It’s a matter of Apple’s attitude. They behave as if they are still the owner and the one in charge of the device, the IT department.

            If they sold soup, they would control whether you can salt it, and with who’s salt. This goes back to Jobs.

         3. I think the engineers who built the slow-down feature thought they were doing something that would benefit the user. Better to run slow than crash the phone completely. I’ve had both experiences with an iPhone 6S back in the day. Guess which was more disruptive? And, the user-friendly people probably thought “bothering the user with a dialog about this might be disruptive or confusing.”
            Where the problem lies is that this wasn’t documented ANYWHERE public. If it was, people who found the slow-down irritating could have found out WHY and then decided whether to get a battery replacement or go further and buy a new phone. I still think it’s possible that they didn’t deliberately do this to fool people into buying new phones. If it WAS deliberate, that might be legally actionable.

         4. The engineers are not at fault per se. Thin comes with restrictions, as you see. Over-stressed batteries, in large part due to size constraints, at a given performance level age sooner.

            So they didn’t/couldn’t stand up to Ives or whoever. Also, the engineers didn’t decide to deceive, the executives did.

2. Apple documentation has been going downhill fast for a long time. Ios is a mess of inconsistency, the user is expected to use Google to find answers on the web because apps don’t have help menus and Apple’s online help is nothing but press releases and a forum.

   the same bad management is creeping into the Mac. If Apple cannot be forthright about batteries, why would anyone trust them with life critical stuff like medical or cars? I truly fear that the user focu, support, quality we used to enjoy is gone.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.