Quote<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> Apple published on Thursday a public letter to their customers apologizing for slowing down old iPhone devices with a feature implemented in the latest version of the iOS mobile operating system to prevent sudden shutdowns under certain conditions. </p> </div>
I think that's actually very generous of them.
I'll certainly be taking up the offer if I can for my 3yo 6s and the wife's 2yo 6s plus.
I don't think they have much choice really There are customers in US France and Israel who are suing them.
Planned obsolescence (which is illegal in France) has a lot to answer for
Quote<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> Planned obsolescence, or built-in obsolescence,in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete (that is, unfashionable or no longer functional) after a certain period of time. </p> </div>
How to Tell If Apple Slowed Down Your iPhone Due to Degraded Battery
- Why did they implement that feature in the first place ? If I were Apple then I would remove that feature.
4 hours ago, Willy2 said:<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> - Why did they implement that feature in the first place ? If I were Apple then I would remove that feature. </p> </div>
Probably a lose/lose. If they didn't throttle the phones with damaged batteries, and it either caused serious degradation of performance, early shutdowns, etc, there would have been equally vocal complaints. They should have publicized their facts and motivations for doing this, but from an engineering perspective, I mostly understand the why it was done. Transparency is key in situations like this.
8 hours ago, Winapp2.ini said:<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> Probably a lose/lose. If they didn't throttle the phones with damaged batteries, and it either caused serious degradation of performance, early shutdowns, etc, there would have been equally vocal complaints. They should have publicized their facts and motivations for doing this, but from an engineering perspective, I mostly understand the <em>why</em> it was done. Transparency is key in situations like this. </p> </div>
That's one side of the coin I guess.My take on it is they just wanted people to buy a new phone and got caught.
Greedy.
I've been an iPhone user for quite a while. Since the iPhone 5 (2012). I was pretty aggravated by this but I also understood why they did it since some phones were shutting down. I actually still have my 7 because I didn't want the x and the 8 is basically the same phone. (I kept my 7 despite being on a yearly upgrade plan with ATT) So I probably will let them replace the battery. I have replaced the battery in my older iphone 6 a few years ago and it wasn't that hard so if I decided to keep this phone even longer its good to know if I just replace the battery it will be back to new.
They're only doing that in my opinion to try to avoid going to court, and to save face so people keep buying the newest iPhone. Only problem is what they've did by supposedly building something to become obsolete is illegal in some countries in particular France.
I personally know of 3 people who have replaced their iPhones with Samsungs because they had seen how much faster Android was running on their friends phones.
(I could sit next to my friend, do a search and have a webpage up on my Samsung while his iPhone was still searching for it).
This was before this throttling issue came to light.
Apple may have shot themselves in the foot with this one.
I did overhear two strangers discussing that they were considering moving to the Google Pixel phones over this while I was out the other day.
I'm not going to switch for a couple of reasons. I had a galaxy s3 and s5 before I went to the iPhone. Both phones started out great but overtime the software updates would kill the experience by making the phone crash or unresponsive. Also at the time those phones didn't have as good of cameras as my wifes iphone 4 and 5. The other reasons is that my professional and social circle all have iPhones too. Last year I did a job interview over facetime and this year when I met my new coworkers they all used Apple's address book share thing to give me their phone numbers. At least where I'm at the iPhone seems like the standard.
Also I love my apple watch. I tried the google watches when they came to iOS and they aren't as good.
1 hour ago, rridgely said:<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> Last year I did a job interview over facetime and this year when I met my new coworkers they all used Apple's address book share thing to give me their phone numbers. At least where I'm at the iPhone seems like the standard. </p> </div>
At one time (1990's, 2000's ?) it used to be Blackberrys for that kind of networking.
Things move on.
No doubt Android will be old news soon.
15 hours ago, hazelnut said:<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> That's one side of the coin I guess.My take on it is they just wanted people to buy a new phone and got caught. </p> <p> Greedy. </p> </div>
Yep, think so.
Also they are facing a design issue. That battery isn't easy for most folks to replace. I know some of you guys do it easily, but not most folks. And there are warranty issues.
At $79 US a pop, the price was pretty high, at the reduced price of $29 they probably will still make profit. Just a guess but i would bet on it.
At the core of this issue is transparency, imo. If they just would have owned up early and said bring'em in for a battery, they might have been able to keep selling the service for $79.
Nothing like a barrage of international class action lawsuits to generate sudden generosity.
Edit: Nukecad, I still use a Blackberry, not the newest one. I like it, it's still rated at or near the top for security.. Has everything I need, but it doesn't have the tons of apps that users want nowadays.
17 hours ago, hazelnut said:<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> My take on it is they just wanted people to buy a new phone and got caught. </p> <p> Greedy. </p> </div>
- Right. When everyone has an iPhone then why buy a new one ?
- This isn't the 1st time I heard of such a story.
If they actually build and sell the Apple car which has been speculated for a few years, I wonder how long it will last if obsolescence is built in.
12 hours ago, Andavari said:<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> If they actually build and sell the Apple car which has been speculated for a few years,<strong> I wonder how long it will last</strong> if obsolescence is built in. </p> </div>
Probably only until the batteries catch fire.
Quote<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> Apple published on Thursday a public letter to their customers apologizing for slowing down old iPhone devices with a feature implemented in the latest version of the iOS mobile operating system to prevent sudden shutdowns under certain conditions. </p> </div> </blockquote>
as longer i think about this "feature" to prevent sudden shutdowns... i mean, this was a good choice from apple for all owner of older iphones that this feature protected this older hardware for damage and perhaps longer usability vs. buy a new iphone instead -> dont you mean too?
Quote<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> At $79 US a pop, the price was pretty high, at the reduced price of $29 they probably will still make profit. Just a guess but i would bet on it. </p> </div>
yes i think so
On 01/01/2018 at 15:26, nukecad said:<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> Probably only until the batteries catch fire. <img alt=":lol:" data-emoticon="" src="<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/default_laugh.png" title=":lol:"></p> </div>
I must have been having a deja-vue moment about battery fires :
Quote<div class="ipsQuote_contents"> <p> French prosecutors have launched a probe over allegations of "planned obsolescence" in Apple's iPhone. </p> <p> Under French law it is a crime to intentionally shorten lifespan of a product with the aim of making customers replace it. </p> </div>