Re:Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case ov...
by mlindner on Thursday November 19, 2020 @03:02AM
(#25147232)
It actually makes most sense that they weren't being malicious. Half the posts on this thread don't even understand what the problem is. Namely throttling to prevent the device from shutting off as if it was some kind of anti-consumer feature when it was actually pro-consumer.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case ov...
by djmobley on Thursday November 19, 2020 @03:15AM
(#25147318)
Exactly this. As someone who experienced the unexpected shutdowns (described my experience elsewhere in these comments), the throttling fixed my issue until I ended up getting my battery replaced by a third party.
I think what a lot of people miss is that it was not just a restart, but a shutdown that would then require a charger be connected before the phone could be turned on again, even though it would then report similar charge to before the shutdown.
If you were out of the house and did not have a charger readily accessible, it was equivalent to the phone randomly turning into a brick for several hours at a time.
Re:Apple Agrees to Pay $113M to Settle 'Batterygate' Case ov...
by invisible on Thursday November 19, 2020 @05:57AM
(#25148235)
I can’t speak for everyone on this thread, but the combination of “hiding” and “degrading” are what make this anti-consumer. If your car wouldn’t go over 30mph and the manufacturer wouldn’t disclose why, how would you feel?
From the article:
>Apple, the most valuable company in the world, acted deceptively by hiding the shutdown and slowdown issues, according to the court filing.
>"Many consumers decided that the only way to get improved performance was to purchase a newer-model iPhone from Apple," Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich wrote...