First Lawsuits Filed Against Apple for Slowing iPhones

from extremetech.com

Over the years, iPhone owners have often wondered aloud if Apple was doing something to slow down older devices. Now, we know that yes, it does do that. Just a few days after admitting that it has been quietly throttling older iPhones with degraded batteries, a pair of lawsuits have been filed against Apple alleging fraud and deceptive practices.

It became clear during the last few iOS version updates that Apple had opted to apply performance throttling to older devices. It wasn’t until Geekbench ran comparisons with various iOS versions that iPhone owners had any proof. Apple was forced to issue a statement in which is admitted to slowing down iPhones. In some ways, its position makes sense, but the way it handled the situation is terrible.

The situation has to do with how lithium-ion batteries age. We’re all familiar with batteries losing capacity as they get old, but they also have less voltage. It turns out Apple didn’t include enough headroom for the battery, and its voltage can fall below what is needed to power the custom A-series system-on-a-chip. Without enough voltage, the phone can just shut down without warning. Apple’s solution to this was to add performance throttling to iOS based on battery voltage. So, if your battery is degrading, your phone gets slow.

The first class-action lawsuit filed in Illinois accuses Apple of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Art. Specifically, the filers point to Apple’s decision not to notify users it was going to throttle their phones. As had been pointed out, very few would suspect a battery issue as the root cause of sluggish performance. That could lead consumers just to buy a new phone, which is to Apple’s advantage.

Another suit filed in Los Angeles claims Apple’s phone throttling plan “was never requested or agreed upon.” This suit also suggests Apple is hoping to get consumers to upgrade by slowing down their phones rather than simply reporting that the hardware might need service.

It looks like Apple’s decision to introduce this “feature” secretly is the main issue here. Even if Apple’s intentions were pure (which is certainly up for debate), making these performance changes in secret looks very suspicious. For a company that claims to care about the user experience, this whole fiasco makes Apple look quite disconnected from the concerns of its customers. Class actions like these are notoriously slow to litigate, so iPhone owners might end up with a small settlement in a couple years.

Flaming iPhone 5c Battery Sets 13-Year-Old’s Pants On Fire

from cultofmac.com

Batteries are potentially volatile things, stuffed with electrochemical cells practically humming with electrolytes. Every once and a while, then, they’re sure to break down, and companies like Apple do literally everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen.

Here’s why. An iPhone 5c that exploded in the pocket of a 13-year-old girl resulted in a fire so severe that she was rushed to the hospital with second-degree burns.

The iPhone was in the girl’s back pocket at the time, so it appears that the failure of the two-month iPhone might have been due to stress. She may have cracked it sitting down.

As a bigger guy who stuffs his iPhone in his own back pocket, I should probably pay attention to this girl’s misfortune before I set my ass on fire.

Apple Sued by DOJ

from WashingtonPost.com

Apple and five of the publishing industry’s top firms were accused of working together to fix prices on e-books in a Justice Department suit Wednesday. Three publishers — Hachette, Simon and Schuster and HarperCollins — agreed to settle. Apple, Penguin Group and Macmillan did not agree to settle. Macmillan’s chief executive said Wednesday that the firm would fight the charges in court.

In its complaint, the Justice Department lays out a narrative of collusion at the highest levels of the tech giant and some of the nation’s biggest publishing houses. The filing is filled with accounts of high-priced lunches, phone calls between chief executives and barbs thrown at the “holdout major publisher,” likely Random House, which took longer to switch to Apple’s agency model.

Here are some highlights from the filing:
- The complaint paints Apple’s late co-founder Steve Jobs as dismissive toward concerns that the companies might be in unethical territory. In her remarks, acting antitrust chief Sharis Pozen pointed to a Jobs quote to illustrate that attitude. According to the complaint, Jobs told the publishers, “the customer pays a little more, but that’s what you want anyway.”
- Amazon looms large in the filing. At several points, the lawsuit quotes executives complaining about the e-reader giant’s $9.99 price point. Publishers reportedly told Apple that the “price for new releases is eroding the value perception of of their products in customer’s minds, and they do not what this practice to continue for new releases.”
- The complaints turned to fury when Amazon announced that it would let copyright holders publish their books directly through the online retailer.
Penguin USA chief executive David Shanks reportedly responded, “[on] Apple I am now more convinced that we need a viable alternative to Amazon or this nonsense will continue and get much worse.” He is quoted as saying he was “‘p****d’ at Amazon,” and the filing said Shanks “expressed his desire to screw Amazon.”
- The suit also alleges that the publishing firm chiefs coordinated an effort to stand strong against the Web retailer and maker of the enormously successful Kindle e-reader, encouraging members to “hold back your books from Amazon.” At one point, Macmillan asked Amazon to convert to Apple’s agency model. When Amazon refused, the publishing firm essentially stopped selling its books on the Web site. The suit quotes the chief executive of another publishing firm telling Macmillan’s CEO: “I can ensure you that you are not going to find your company alone in the battle.”
- The suit accuses Penguin and Shanks of taking lead in criticizing a “holdout major publisher,” telling that publisher that it was “not helping” the group.
According to the complaint, Jobs refused to sell books from the holdout publisher unless it “agreed to an agency relationship substantially similar” to Apple’s arrangements with the other companies.
- Justice has also presented evidence that the publishers agreed to sign on to the agency model only if all did so together, and that two CEOs admitted under oath that they had called other publishers “specifically to learn” whether they would sign with Apple before the iPad launch.