[johncalvinyoung]

I'm not a fan of Apple's practices, but there's some aggravating elements to this. Apple doesn't brick your device if it it spends time at a repair location, for instance. Apple also doesn't simulate failures on synthetic dates to force repair.

[lrhegeba]

I wouldnt be so sure, one can think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batterygate as an example of a little bit of "bricking"

[labcomputer]

While I don't think Apple handled that well, the intent is clearly different. In fact, the situations are so different, that I have to wonder if you are a troll.

In battery gate, 1-2 year old devices were starting to reboot at low state-of-charge (typically <30% battery). Apple issued a software update that fixed the reboot problem... hmm, how does software fix what smells like a hardware issue? Well, the underlying cause was that aged batteries could not supply enough current and would brownout the CPU (which caused the reboots). The fix was to throttle the CPU a low SoC, which avoided the brownout--so they "fixed" a real problem that I experienced.

My feeling is that Apple owed customers like me some compensation. But, it is clear that the performance throttling was not just an arbitrary "fuck you". Rather, it was a misguided attempt to save the cost of warranty battery replacements in a way they thought customers wouldn't notice.

The current situation couldn't be more different. Here, the manufacturer has added software from the factory to create fake error codes. The hardware is working perfectly fine, but when the train sits in certain locations for too many days, it will pretend to have a hardware failure. During certain months of the year, the train will fake a hardware error. There is no possible explanation for this, except as a "fuck you" to the customer who wants to use 3rd party service.

[kwhitefoot]

> it was a misguided attempt to save the cost of warranty battery replacements in a way they thought customers wouldn't notice.

Sounds like fuck you to me.