Apple facing yet another multi-state probe related to iPhone throttling

Apple is once again targeted in a multi-state consumer protection investigation over the highly publicized "batterygate" controversy.

Arizona is leading a multi-state probe to find out if Apple's intentional slowing down of older iPhones violated trade practice laws, according to documents seen by Reuters.

Last week, technology watchdog Tech Transparency Project discovered that the Texas attorney general may file a lawsuit against Apple for violating the state's deceptive trade practices law.

Two months ago, Apple's $500 million deal to settle a series of class-action lawsuits involving the so-called iPhone slowdown controversy was approved by the U.S. District Court.

Users affected by Apple's throttling of older iPhones can now submit a claim to potentially receive around $25 per phone, following a court's decision to accept Apple's settlement.

Follow AppleInsider on Google News

7 Comments

geekmee

said about 3 years ago

Can you say? Pile on
Because that is where the money is.

hodar

said about 3 years ago

So, in an effort to keep your phone from crashing, due to normal battery degradation; Apple freely admits they ran battery testing and reduced the performance on older iPhones to prevent them from randomly rebooting, due to worn batteries.

This was done, with the intent to make perfectly serviceable phones, continue to be usable. If anything, it allowed their customers to use older iPhones for more than they would have, and likely delayed some customers from upgrading immediately - as their phone "still worked'.

No good deed goes unpunished. All Apple had to do was push a note during boot-up that said "Your iPhone battery is weak and needs to be replaced, in an effort to prolong the life of the battery, your iPhone's performance will be reduced. To restore full performance, please have your battery replaced".

That mistake was expensive.

george kaplan

said about 3 years ago

hodar said:

So, in an effort to keep your phone from crashing, due to normal battery degradation; Apple freely admits they ran battery testing and reduced the performance on older iPhones to prevent them from randomly rebooting, due to worn batteries.
This was done, with the intent to make perfectly serviceable phones, continue to be usable. If anything, it allowed their customers to use older iPhones for more than they would have, and likely delayed some customers from upgrading immediately - as their phone "still worked'.

No good deed goes unpunished. All Apple had to do was push a note during boot-up that said "Your iPhone battery is weak and needs to be replaced, in an effort to prolong the life of the battery, your iPhone's performance will be reduced. To restore full performance, please have your battery replaced".

That mistake was expensive.
Yes. Apple’s fatal flaw was that it was not forthcoming about the reason for the throttling, and even denied it was happening following the update. Their famous reputation for secrecy caused them to not do a full disclosure—had it been phrased as you suggested, this would have been over in a week or two. Instead, the denial gave legs to a stupid conspiracy theory that this was all a plot to make people unsatisfied with their phones and cause an upgrade.

I think many with Android phones don’t keep their phones as long as Apple customers keep their iPhones, so there really is no analog experience with Android, even though the same problem would exist. Therefore, this is seen as something unique to Apple, making the “problem” even worse for the company.

My 6S got a new battery for $29, which was a great deal for me, and I kept my phone another year-plus afterwards. I still replaced it with an 11 when the time was right, but I used my phone for 4 years otherwise. Nobody with an Android phone as a daily driver keeps it for 4 years (unless they’re 70 and using Consumer Cellular to have handy for emergencies). Hell, many Android phones can’t get software updates for 4 years. The news media has to start regarding Apple iPhones are something substantially different from their Android competitors in some key points of evaluation, if they’re going to roast them on the battery debacle.

Beats

said about 3 years ago

hodar said:

So, in an effort to keep your phone from crashing, due to normal battery degradation; Apple freely admits they ran battery testing and reduced the performance on older iPhones to prevent them from randomly rebooting, due to worn batteries.
This was done, with the intent to make perfectly serviceable phones, continue to be usable. If anything, it allowed their customers to use older iPhones for more than they would have, and likely delayed some customers from upgrading immediately - as their phone "still worked'.

No good deed goes unpunished. All Apple had to do was push a note during boot-up that said "Your iPhone battery is weak and needs to be replaced, in an effort to prolong the life of the battery, your iPhone's performance will be reduced. To restore full performance, please have your battery replaced".

That mistake was expensive.

Youtubers and the anti-Apple army jumped on this as some conspiracy theory. Remember "planned obsolescence"? Idiots.

mcdave

said about 3 years ago

hodar said:

So, in an effort to keep your phone from crashing, due to normal battery degradation; Apple freely admits they ran battery testing and reduced the performance on older iPhones to prevent them from randomly rebooting, due to worn batteries.
This was done, with the intent to make perfectly serviceable phones, continue to be usable. If anything, it allowed their customers to use older iPhones for more than they would have, and likely delayed some customers from upgrading immediately - as their phone "still worked'.

No good deed goes unpunished. All Apple had to do was push a note during boot-up that said "Your iPhone battery is weak and needs to be replaced, in an effort to prolong the life of the battery, your iPhone's performance will be reduced. To restore full performance, please have your battery replaced".

That mistake was expensive.

And the dumb thing is, that warning wouldn’t have changed the phone’s behaviour one bit. If the customer thought it was too slow they were always going to change it. Actually, I’m pretty sure more would have changed them.
Nobody said the law had to make sense.