Judge Finally Clears Way for Apple's $500 Million iPhone Throttling Settlement (siliconvalley.com) 65
"Owners of some older iPhone models are expected to receive about $65 each," reports SiliconValley.com, "after a judge cleared the way for payments in a class-action lawsuit accusing Apple of secretly throttling phone performance."
The Cupertino cell phone giant agreed in 2020 to pay up to $500 million to resolve a lawsuit alleging it had perpetrated "one of the largest consumer frauds in history" by surreptitiously slowing the performance of certain iPhone models to address problems with batteries and processors...
According to the lawsuit, filed in 2018, reports of unexplained iPhone shutdowns began to surface in 2015 and increased in the fall of 2016. Consumers complained their phones were shutting off even though the batteries showed a charge of more than 30%, the lawsuit claimed. The lawsuit claimed the shutdowns resulted from a mismatch between phones' hardware, including batteries and processing chips, and the ever-increasing demands of constantly updating operating systems. Apple tried to fix the problem with a software update, but the update merely throttled device performance to cut the number of shutdowns, the lawsuit claimed... In a 2019 court filing in the case, Apple argued that lithium-ion batteries become less effective with time, repeated charging, extreme temperatures and general use. Updating software, Apple asserted in the filing, entails trade-offs. "Providing more features also introduces complexity and can reduce speed, and increasing features or speed may adversely impact hardware lifespan," the company said.
Consumer grief over the shutdowns and alleged throttling also led to a 2020 lawsuit against Apple by the State of California and Alameda and Los Angeles counties. Apple, admitting to no wrongdoing, settled the case for $113 million.
About 3 million claims were received, the article notes, and two iPhone owners who'd objected to the settlement lost their appeal this week, "removing the final obstacle to the deal..."
"The phones at issue in the case were iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, and SE devices running operating systems iOS 10.2.1 or later before Dec. 21, 2017, and iPhone 7 and 7 Plus phones running iOS 11.2 or later before that date."
According to the lawsuit, filed in 2018, reports of unexplained iPhone shutdowns began to surface in 2015 and increased in the fall of 2016. Consumers complained their phones were shutting off even though the batteries showed a charge of more than 30%, the lawsuit claimed. The lawsuit claimed the shutdowns resulted from a mismatch between phones' hardware, including batteries and processing chips, and the ever-increasing demands of constantly updating operating systems. Apple tried to fix the problem with a software update, but the update merely throttled device performance to cut the number of shutdowns, the lawsuit claimed... In a 2019 court filing in the case, Apple argued that lithium-ion batteries become less effective with time, repeated charging, extreme temperatures and general use. Updating software, Apple asserted in the filing, entails trade-offs. "Providing more features also introduces complexity and can reduce speed, and increasing features or speed may adversely impact hardware lifespan," the company said.
Consumer grief over the shutdowns and alleged throttling also led to a 2020 lawsuit against Apple by the State of California and Alameda and Los Angeles counties. Apple, admitting to no wrongdoing, settled the case for $113 million.
About 3 million claims were received, the article notes, and two iPhone owners who'd objected to the settlement lost their appeal this week, "removing the final obstacle to the deal..."
"The phones at issue in the case were iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, and SE devices running operating systems iOS 10.2.1 or later before Dec. 21, 2017, and iPhone 7 and 7 Plus phones running iOS 11.2 or later before that date."
$65 (Score:3, Insightful)
Did affected owners experience $65 in harm? I'd argue it's more, as their $800+ phones suddenly felt almost worhtless, and they were compelled to buy new ones. Thus each affected owner should get the value of a new phone.
I wonder how much the lawyers each get.
Re:$65 (Score:5, Interesting)
The software they write adds features and other elements which is going to have a measurable impact on the performance and lifespan of their older phones.. If users remained with the shipping version then they would be fine because the state would be limited to just the natural expiration of batteries.
This is no different from people upgrading windows from windows 98 (which was the shipping version) to windows 11 (the latest) and while it CAN run on the later versions, there is going to be a performance penalty which is going to present itself either as slower performance and/or (in the case of laptops) reduced battery life because the same hardware is being asked to do more.
Apple's only mistake in this is not educating the consumer about it.. (people in IT SHOULD know this.... but the average consumer?... I wouldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet). And so for the conspiracy minded, this looks like apple is doing forced obsolescence when in fact, its really not.
In the old days, if you wanted new features you had to get a new device.. now you have a computer in your pocket and its being treated more or less like a PC but people still have a "legacy phone" model in their heads...
Re: (Score:3)
'In the old days, if you wanted new features you had to get a new device.'
Well, Apple still comes out with a new iPhone almost every year which some would argue was the impetus in throttling a relative new phone.
Re: (Score:3)
This is no different from people upgrading windows from windows 98 (which was the shipping version) to windows 11 (the latest) and while it CAN run on the later versions, there is going to be a performance penalty which is going to present itself either as slower performance and/or (in the case of laptops) reduced battery life because the same hardware is being asked to do more.
The problem I have with this argument is that, unlike a PC, you can't roll back the update if you have an issue with a new iOS version; you're stuck with it on that particular piece of hardware.
I also want to add, I'm pretty sure there's no hardware setup that's even capable of natively running both Windows 98 and 11, seeing that the former is more than 25 years old and the latter requires a 64 bit processor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also want to add, I'm pretty sure there's no hardware setup that's even capable of natively running both Windows 98 and 11, seeing that the former is more than 25 years old and the latter requires a 64 bit processor.
You can't do it on intel, but you can do it on AMD. You will probably need this [archive.org]. Also, good luck with GPU support. You're probably gonna need the oldest GPU you can find that will slot in.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You can't even run Windows 11 on Ryzen 1000 chips
What are you talking about? It absolutely can, and does. They have TPM 2.0, so about the only thing keeping you from using Windows 11 is it isn't on the list of "officially supported" cpus, hence you won't get it as an update via Windows Update to a Windows 10 install, but it will install fine from an iso image
Re: (Score:3)
You can't even run Windows 11 on Ryzen 1000 chips
You can run Windows 11 on much older hardware than you think. There are registry keys you can set during install (just run regedit during the install process) which disable either all of the preinstallation checks, or each of them individually. ISTR there are like 5 different checks. The TPM requirement is ENTIRELY ARTIFICIAL and it's there only to encourage sales of new PCs with TPM 2.0 in them to encourage people to buy computers that aren't really theirs.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's only mistake in this is not educating the consumer about it.. (people in IT SHOULD know this.... but the average consumer?... I wouldn't trust them to sit the right way on a toilet). And so for the conspiracy minded, this looks like apple is doing forced obsolescence when in fact, its really not.
Apple throttled performance in order for battery life to be extended. Their only mistake (not being honest and upfront about that) was exactly what opened the door for conspiracy to pave the way to an easy lawsuit. Those who devalue or demonize honesty in business, likely have no business being in business. If more people valued honesty, we wouldn't be watching stock markets crash regularly because they turn into a predictable house of cards every other decade. Makes inevitable retirement become a gambl
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
This is no different from people upgrading windows from windows 98 (which was the shipping version) to windows 11 (the latest)
This is in fact a major difference. Apple didn't just update the software with bigger, more bloated code that required more horsepower. It added code that was specifically intended to slow down older hardware, even though that hardware *could* have run the OS faster. It's one matter to simply not pay attention to performance tuning, it's another thing to intentionally throttle older hardware based on nothing more than a check of the processor version.
Re:$65 (Score:5, Informative)
This is in fact a major difference. Apple didn't just update the software with bigger, more bloated code that required more horsepower. It added code that was specifically intended to slow down older hardware, even though that hardware *could* have run the OS faster. It's one matter to simply not pay attention to performance tuning, it's another thing to intentionally throttle older hardware based on nothing more than a check of the processor version.
That's not at all what the code did. The code they added only slows the processor down if the battery can't provide enough power to run the CPU at full speed. It's got nothing to do with the age or version of anything, it's all about instantaneous conditions.
The feature was mostly added to address brand new phones spontaneously shutting off if you used them outside in cold winter months, or if you tried to use too many features at the same time (say record video with music playing and the gps on). It also helped on older phones with degraded batteries.
Re:$65 (Score:5, Insightful)
The slowdown reportedly affected Apple phones that were released between 2014 and 2016
So not all phones just specific ones made during a specific time period.
Your arguments pretty much parrot Apple's own talking points, but these did not persuade courts around the world, including the US, UK, and Europe. https://www.theverge.com/2021/... [theverge.com] Given the magnitude of the settlements in these court cases, it's unlikely that Apple had only the purest of intentions.
Yeah, I believe it was the iPhone 6/6s/7 models when the issue was relevant, or something similar to that.
I got an iPhone 6S around Nov 2015. All winter long, it would randomly shut off while I was using it outdoors in cold weather. The phone would shut off and couldn't power on again until I took it inside and it warmed up. It took months for Apple to acknowledge the issue, and I believe another few months for the fix to come out. Never happened again once the fix came out.
That's what this fix was driven by. Brand new phones being unusable in the winter. Getting more life out of old phones was a bonus fix.
Re: (Score:2)
What a great bonus! Maybe Google should add a old-phone-slow-down feature in Android too! No thanks I'll pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Google should add a old-phone-slow-down feature in Android too!
When my battery was reaching the end of its lifespan I would have liked this feature. When the remaining charge was about 50% any CPU spike could have caused the phone to shut down. The battery had enough juice total since it could idle for days still, but it couldn't provide the maximum power it was designed for anymore under certain conditions. A simple way to say "battery getting low, don't allow all cores to hit 2GHz unless it's charging" would have helped.
Re: (Score:2)
Android does in fact have a "Battery Saver" feature that you can turn on at will. https://support.google.com/and... [google.com]
But unlike Apple's feature (originally) you can turn it on or off as needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's had an easily togglable battery saver feature like that for a long time. They had it years before the issue in discussion here. The feature you're talking about is just turning off features to make the battery last longer.
The feature in discussion here is slowing down the CPU if the phone is trying to draw more power than the battery is capable of supplying. This stops the phone from shutting off under heavy load.
Re: (Score:2)
I definitely like my phone slowing down when the battery cant provide enough power. The alternative is your phone just shuts off in the middle of whatever you are doing. You are saying you prefer your phone to randomly crash/shut down on you rather than throttle performance?
Re: (Score:2)
This is a problem specific to certain models of iPhone, it's not a more generic "keep the phone on but slower, rather than an unexpected shutoff." Android doesn't have this issue at all, to my knowledge. If it were a generic battery issue, then I would expect it to be universal.
Android has a "battery saver" setting that you can enable or disable based on your preferences. Apple's problem was they just made it happen without a clear explanation. And based on the response from regulators around the world (US,
Re: (Score:2)
This is a problem specific to certain models of iPhone, it's not a more generic "keep the phone on but slower, rather than an unexpected shutoff."
That's exactly what it is. It just slow the phone down to prevent shutdowns. There's a couple iPhone models where the issue was particularly bad and the OS didn't yet have support for dealing with the problem.
Android doesn't have this issue at all, to my knowledge. If it were a generic battery issue, then I would expect it to be universal.
It is a generic battery issue. The power output from a battery is reduced as the battery ages, or if operating in cold winter weather. At that particular point in time, it was kinda common, as the feature set on phones was expanding and phones were getting thinner. There was definitely a sweet spot whe
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the issue here is just that they didn't explain it well on the phone.
You are much more trusting of Apple than I would be. And no, Google is no better. The difference is, as an Android user, I don't take every word Google says as Gospel.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple introduced it when they were getting hammered because older phones would go from 60% to 2% battery in a second. My wife's iPhone 6 did that.
It happens because they didn't properly test the effect of battery aging on the phone. When the battery ages, the voltage drop relative to the current being drawn gets higher. The sudden large voltage drop makes the phone think that the battery is nearly depleted, despite the fact that its energy in/out counter says it should be at about 60% state-of-charge.
All li
Re: (Score:2)
This is no different from people upgrading windows from windows 98 (which was the shipping version) to windows 11 (the latest) and while it CAN run on the later versions, there is going to be a performance penalty which is going to present itself either as slower performance and/or (in the case of laptops) reduced battery life because the same hardware is being asked to do more.
Those situations are nothing alike.
Apple added a feature that slows the CPU down if the power output from the battery drops too low. That can happen if you've got a really old battery, or it can happen even on new batteries if you're outdoors in temperatures around freezing. It's can also happen if you use too many features at once on your phone - GPS, camera, music, data, etc. It wasn't directly tied to the age of the phone or battery.
With the feature, your phone stays on but runs slower. Without it, your phone spontaneously shuts off while you're in the middle of doing things.
Their mistake was in messaging. The support and release notes explained it fully, but the messaging in iOS just said something like "Your phone is running slower because your battery is degraded." and left out the "The slowdown stops your phone from shutting off" part.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Did affected owners experience $65 in harm? I'd argue it's more, as their $800+ phones suddenly felt almost worhtless, and they were compelled to buy new ones. Thus each affected owner should get the value of a new phone.
I wonder how much the lawyers each get.
I have a 6 Plus, and never even noticed it.
Most of the "slowdowns" lasted for fractions of a second. This Judgment was only possible because Courts are generally profoundly inept at understanding technical matters; and this was a pretty technical case.
Re: (Score:2)
A fraction of a second? Hardly. My phone was slow as molasses, it was so much of a slowdown that I was considering a newer phone. I also had battery life problems, so I changed the battery. Suddenly the phone was MUCH faster. The throttling was made public a few weeks later.
No, I don't think $65 is enough. If I hadn't used a 3rd party battery and changed it myself the battery replacement would have cost more than that.
Re: (Score:2)
A fraction of a second? Hardly. My phone was slow as molasses, it was so much of a slowdown that I was considering a newer phone. I also had battery life problems, so I changed the battery. Suddenly the phone was MUCH faster. The throttling was made public a few weeks later.
The slowdown only triggered if your battery wasn't capable of providing enough power to run the CPU at full speed. Without the slowdown, your phone would've been shutting off any time you stressed the CPU or used too many features.
The throttling wasn't a secret - they announced the fix was coming weeks in advance, and announced they were working on the feature months before it came. It was wonderful for all the people dealing with spontaneous shutdown issues.
Re: (Score:2)
either way people though they need a new phone instead of just a new battery, exactly what apple had in mind.
Prove it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 6 Plus, and never even noticed it.
I never noticed it either.
But I don't use my phone as a compute server, so I coulda missed a 30% reduction in performance.
This Judgment was only possible because Courts are generally profoundly inept at understanding technical matters
The important thing is not technical: Apple did potentially harmful stuff without informing their customers.
Apple could have just informed the customers and given them a choice:
1. Disable the new features.
2. Accept a 30% degradation in performance.
3. Recharge your phone more often.
Battery life is mission-critical for me, so I woulda picked either 1 or 2, depending on what the new feature
Re: $65 (Score:2)
Generally people only experience problems with iPhones when they hold it wrong. Or in the case of the iPhone 6, they were bending it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose I should be owed settlements for two of these affected models but frankly, I'll be pleased and surprised if I even see a penny. Just be glad the starting point isn't a $5 iTunes gift card.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect it to fairly compensate claimants. But my definition of fairly may differ from yours. If some value was derived from the product, then "fairly" doesn't require a 100% refund. If you used it for a year despite the perceived quality deficit, then some portion is due... just like what seems to be the case here.
Lawyer Fees (Score:2)
Re: $65 (Score:3)
Only people whose battery was degraded experienced it, so that immediately limits you to people whose phoneâ(TM)s value has depreciated. Further, their phone went from randomly shutting down due to under voltage to working, just slower. That also mitigates some of the harm caused. Tbh, this sounds like a pretty fair settlement to me.
Re: (Score:3)
It wouldn't have been so bad if they phone wasn't glued shut and made out of fragile glass that was liable to crack if you tried opening it. People wouldn't have cared if a simple, cheap, user replaceable battery was available.
I'm really glad that the EU is mandating it now.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the EU us mandating what you think it's mandating.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite sure how loud that brain fart was, but given the fact that you completely overlooked a Legal system by lawyers for lawyers when calculating the per-person payout, the rest of us can stop wondering what that smell is.
Re: (Score:2)
I had one of the affected phones...I didn't see any difference, let alone $65 or whatever worth of difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The general rule is the damages are minimized - if there was a way to restore performance easily then it's that cost. Thus, if you simply changed the battery your phone's performance would be restored. Apple charged $70 to replace the battery. Thus, t
Re: (Score:2)
Did affected owners experience $65 in harm? I'd argue it's more, as their $800+ phones suddenly felt almost worhtless, and they were compelled to buy new ones.
The CPU slowdown only kicks in if your CPU is about to shut off due to inadequate power coming from the battery. I still can't imagine how "My phone continued to run but at slower speeds" is somehow worse than "My phone shut off while I was in the middle of doing something".
I wonder how much the lawyers each get.
I dunno, but they deserve a lot for being able to successfully argue any harm was done at all here.
"Felt" worthless? (Score:2)
Who cares? The question the court has to weigh is about actual harm. Did they, in fact, have a working phone, but were unimpressed with the performance? What percentage of the phone would you declare inoperable? I personally had one of these phones and it came and went without me noticing this issue. Lasted two more years as my sisters phone when I moved on.
How large Apple is doesn't matter for the settlement. Not every judgment needs to cripple a company to be felt.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Here on Slashdot we (like you) are communists, paid by Putin to post nonsense.
Minimal payout from a megacorp (Score:4, Insightful)
As usual they walk away with a slap on the wrist and the lawyers get rich.
Well - the important people are happy...
Re: (Score:2)
As usual they walk away with a slap on the wrist and the lawyers get rich.
Well - the important people are happy...
Exactly!
FTFA:
"About 3 million claims were received, and the latest estimate puts compensation at about $65 per claim, said Tyson Redenbarger, a lawyer who represented iPhone customers in the case."
Someone on a different thread pointed this out:
3Million x $65 = $195 Million That's what the iPhone customer gets.
$500 Million - $195 Million is $305 Million. That's what the lawyers get.
That's quite a bit more than usual 1/3 of the settlement that a lawyer gets. And a judge approved it. Typical.
this is why eu battery regulation is good (Score:2)
this is why eu battery regulation is good you should be able to change your battery out in an easy way.
With no locking of them
Re: (Score:1)
No. There's no iPhone released which didn't have a battery replaceable by an average kid with $5 worth of tools from ebay. The EU battery legislation isn't a benefit here, it'll just serve to make phones bulkier and/or shorten their battery life. Just because you're hamfisted and too cheap to pay someone $20 to swap the battery doesn't mean you need to go crying to the government.
The EU should have passed right to repair legislation, making tools and first party spares freely available, not pass a law simpl
Re: (Score:3)
this is why eu battery regulation is good you should be able to change your battery out in an easy way. With no locking of them
Yup ...
Apple argued that lithium-ion batteries become less effective with time, repeated charging, extreme temperatures and general use.
Being able to easily replace the battery would solve that issue.
Updating software, Apple asserted in the filing, entails trade-offs.
Yes, fewer sales of new(er) phones, or increased more-complicated/expensive battery replacements, by Apple.
And before people complain about impacts to water/dust resistance, my old Kyocera HydroVIBE from way back in 2015 had a IP57 rating with user-replaceable battery *and* a headphone jack -- the whole back had a gasket and popped off revealing the battery, SIM, and MicroSD card. I imagine increased IP ratings are possible 8-years
65 bucks each? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I'm not against these sorts of lawsuits, but I'd love to see some sort of cap put on the lawyers' fees. The payouts to claimants really should be the largest part of any settlement. But one could come up with a cap that's high enough that law firms would still find it worth their while to pursue claims, and still ensuring the majority of the payout goes to the people who suffered the harm.
Problem is, on the rare occasions any related legislation is put forward, it's invariably designed to make it harde
The real winners (Score:2)
You get $65, lawyers get millions.