Apple Accused (Again) of Forcing Users to Upgrade
Spain’s Organizacion de Consumidores y Usuarios has contacted Apple (AAPL) concerning claims that Apple is slowing down performance of the iPhone 12 to encourage users to upgrade to the yet-to-be-released iPhone 13. While this is not the first time Apple has been accused of slowing down older phones, it seems the organization is asking for compensation for iPhone 12, iPhone 11, iPhone 8, and iPhone XS users that have allegedly seem slower operation and poor battery life since upgrading to iOS 14.5. The OCU claims that iOS 14.5, 14.51 and 14.6 updates have “significantly damaged consumer devices”, slowing down performance, and causing the battery to run out faster, and cited class action suits in Belgium, Spain, Italy, and Portugal in reference to the iPhone 6 as a point to Apple’s obsolescence practices.
A number of other European organizations have joined the OCU chorus, some of which are the parties in the earlier iPhone 6 lawsuit, which came after three years of waiting for Apple to respond to its request for consumer compensation, but it is hard to ‘prove’ that Apple has intentionally caused its older devices to perform more poorly when most software updates, which usually add functionality to newer phones, can cause older phones, with older hardware, to perform at less than original speeds. Smartphone batteries also degrade over time, reducing their ability to provide the higher power spikes needed for newer functions, making it hard to isolate whether an OS upgrade has intentional negative connotations for older iPhone models.
That said, Apple did a bad thing in 2017 when it neglected to mention to consumers that a small app called ‘Powerd’ it downloaded to existing iPhones, to act as a fail-safe for older lithium-ion batteries that could cause the phones to randomly shut down in order to protect components. The app did as it was intended by slowing the processor to compensate for the weaker battery, but once it was discovered, it lit a fire under those who had suspected that Apple had been building in ‘planned obsolescence’ for many years. While Apple’s intent was to end complaints that older iPhones had been randomly shutting down with considerable battery power still showing, they neglected telling their user base about the app and suffered the poor marketing experience of ‘batterygate’.
Apple wound up paying $140m in fines and settlements in the US, $5m in France and Italy, and $500m in Canada, although none of the lawsuits resulted in the conclusion that Apple had intentionally harmed consumers, just that it did not tell them it was doing something that might affect performance. Again, the burden of proof will be on the accusers, who believe Apple has already begun its plan to push older model iPhone users to the next generation of iPhones due out later this year., and while thus far these consumer organizations have only contacted Apple with their demands, the objective will likely be to bring action against the company if it does not respond to such demands for compensation. It’s a hard case to prove, and a complex one to explain to a judge and jury, but we know the real winners in a conflict like this, the lawyers, who took a $93m chunk of that $500m settlement back in the day.
A number of other European organizations have joined the OCU chorus, some of which are the parties in the earlier iPhone 6 lawsuit, which came after three years of waiting for Apple to respond to its request for consumer compensation, but it is hard to ‘prove’ that Apple has intentionally caused its older devices to perform more poorly when most software updates, which usually add functionality to newer phones, can cause older phones, with older hardware, to perform at less than original speeds. Smartphone batteries also degrade over time, reducing their ability to provide the higher power spikes needed for newer functions, making it hard to isolate whether an OS upgrade has intentional negative connotations for older iPhone models.
That said, Apple did a bad thing in 2017 when it neglected to mention to consumers that a small app called ‘Powerd’ it downloaded to existing iPhones, to act as a fail-safe for older lithium-ion batteries that could cause the phones to randomly shut down in order to protect components. The app did as it was intended by slowing the processor to compensate for the weaker battery, but once it was discovered, it lit a fire under those who had suspected that Apple had been building in ‘planned obsolescence’ for many years. While Apple’s intent was to end complaints that older iPhones had been randomly shutting down with considerable battery power still showing, they neglected telling their user base about the app and suffered the poor marketing experience of ‘batterygate’.
Apple wound up paying $140m in fines and settlements in the US, $5m in France and Italy, and $500m in Canada, although none of the lawsuits resulted in the conclusion that Apple had intentionally harmed consumers, just that it did not tell them it was doing something that might affect performance. Again, the burden of proof will be on the accusers, who believe Apple has already begun its plan to push older model iPhone users to the next generation of iPhones due out later this year., and while thus far these consumer organizations have only contacted Apple with their demands, the objective will likely be to bring action against the company if it does not respond to such demands for compensation. It’s a hard case to prove, and a complex one to explain to a judge and jury, but we know the real winners in a conflict like this, the lawyers, who took a $93m chunk of that $500m settlement back in the day.
RSS Feed