Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Dylan16807 672 days ago
The only thing they did on purpose was run too close to the limits of the battery.

The battery degraded because it was a battery, and the performance had to degrade along with it because of physics.

Apple didn't decide remotely to weaken performance. That performance was on borrowed time. What Apple did wrong was not making it clear upfront that the performance was on borrowed time and wasn't sustainable.
1 comments
SideQuark 671 days ago
> The battery degraded because it was a battery, and the performance had to degrade along with it because of physics.

> Apple didn't decide remotely to weaken performance.

It's amazing when people just make crap up without even looking something as simple as this up. Apple lost the "batterygate" lawsuit because they specifically did slow down performance on old phone with an update.

A quote [1]: "Apple has agreed to pay up to $500 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the tech giant of slowing down older iPhones to encourage people to buy the latest model. Apple faced a wave of criticism -- and lawsuits -- after acknowledging in 2017 that its iOS software slowed down the performance of some older iPhones."

All the court docs [2]. Knock yourself out.

If you're going to shill, at least take a moment to google a claim before making up nonsense.

[1] https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/apple-to-pay-up-to-500m-to-...

[2] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6431809/in-re-apple-inc...

link
Dylan16807 671 days ago
Okay there's an asterisk on the "had to", which is "unless you want an unstable phone". There's plenty of evidence for that.

Apple lost because they did a bad thing, but I disagree with your characterization of what the bad thing was. In particular I will note that your quote says that they settled and what they were accused of, which is very different from a verdict.

link
SideQuark 670 days ago
Simply read the court docs, which I linked. Or go read proper legal sites where the case is laid out with evidence. Stop making assumption you want to be true, which has been this entire thread.

They settled because discovery pulled out docs showing they knew full well what they did, on purpose, and they settled for a half billion dollars because they stood to lose far more in court if a jury saw that evidence. There is no "we were trying to be nice" defense that would counter their internal documents and discussions demonstrating otherwise.

Apply doesn't hand out half billion payouts for touchy feely reasons.

link
Dylan16807 670 days ago
> knew full well what they did, on purpose

Of course they made the update on purpose and knowing what it would do, but that is not the bar for being malicious and causing truly unnecessary slowdowns.

(If it's unclear, when I wrote above "The only thing they did on purpose" I meant the only relevant problem they caused on purpose. Obviously they do a million things on purpose.)

I'm not going to read a thousand pages of documents to look for maliciousness, if you're not going to point to a specific one, and you're not linking to a news article that has any relevant quotes of those documents.

Reading all of that is not "simple".

Can't you show me the specific evidence that made you so sure? I'm not asking you to search through, just for the information you already had.

> Apply doesn't hand out half billion payouts for touchy feely reasons.

I keep saying they did a bad thing. That is not disputed.

link