> 1. Applied the throttling fix silently
I would maintain that the device that didn't throttle, taking into account the real capabilities of the battery, and instead shut down unexpectedly at 20% was broken. It was fixed by this patch.
> 2. Denied warranty replacements.
There's as much reason to replace a battery under warranty that has maintained 80% charge capacity after 1000 cycles or 2 years, as there is an ink cartridge starting to run low. Batteries start getting worse after each charge cycle, and my understanding is that they followed the prescribed policy.
> 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed.
I'm very much against this policy, as a right-to-repair advocate I believe battery replacements should be simple and end-user achievable. Short of that I agree that the replacement should have been carried out on a cost-plus basis on request.
> 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device.
This is where we disagree except as I replied in (3).
But that's a false dichotomy.
Rather than throttle. You can show less charge. It's what other phones do.
We can all hear the fans spin up and usually we know why. We also know the machine is going to slow down.
The difference on iPhone is there was no precedent and user expectation for this behavior. Apple did not offer a setting for this, though I imagine if they did almost everyone would have turned it on.
Should Apple have explained this up front? Yes. Should they have replaced people’s batteries? Yes.
Was this a 100 million dollar set of mistakes? Probably not. Probably much more in the loss of good will.
I agree w the poster elsewhere this is a marketing and customer support problem.
Sometimes apple makes mistakes and lose in court to great humiliation, like when they tried to force Apple Store employees not get paid to follow their security requirements.
I think it’s good to keep the company on its toes, but this particular case seems pretty mild to me.
I use it extensively as a work computer.
Then you are being deliberately obtuse as many here have already explained that this case was never about the throttling. Quoting another user (Karunamon):
> Again, it's not that Apple didn't violate the laws of physics on their "magical" device, it's that they:
> 1. Applied the throttling fix silently 2. Denied warranty replacements 3. Wouldn't even replace the battery with cash in hand until after the suit was filed 4. ..leaving people with no good way to have a working device.
Basically they were slowing down people's device, without informing them, and forcing them to buy new devices as they refused to replace the battery even when customers were willing to pay for a new battery!