Slashdot Mirror
In First Ruling of Its Kind, Apple and Samsung Fined For Deliberately Slowing Down Old Phones (theguardian.com)
An investigation by Italy's competition authority has found that software updates "significantly reduced performance" on Samsung's Android handsets and iPhones. From a report: Apple and Samsung are being fined Euro 10m ($11.4m) and Euro 5m ($5.7) respectively in Italy for the "planned obsolescence" of their smartphones. An investigation launched in January by the nation's competition authority found that certain smartphone software updates had a negative effect on the performance of the devices. Believed to be the first ruling of its kind against smartphone manufacturers, the investigation followed accusations operating system updates for older phones slowed them down, thereby encouraging the purchase of new phones.
In a statement the antitrust watchdog said "Apple and Samsung implemented dishonest commercial practices" and that operating system updates "caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance, thus accelerating phones' substitution." It added the two firms had not provided clients adequate information about the impact of the new software "or any means of restoring the original functionality of the products."
In a statement the antitrust watchdog said "Apple and Samsung implemented dishonest commercial practices" and that operating system updates "caused serious malfunctions and significantly reduced performance, thus accelerating phones' substitution." It added the two firms had not provided clients adequate information about the impact of the new software "or any means of restoring the original functionality of the products."
It seems to me that they would get in trouble for "planned obsolescence" either way. I'm sure some are thinking "What about 'C. Release software that doesn't slow down older phones'?", but that may not be possible based on the hardware. The only other realistic option is "D. Don't release software updates".
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I know that reading TFA is not standard practice, but:
Apple acknowledged in December that it had intentionally slowed iPhones with degraded batteries through software updates to avoid sudden shutdown problems, but denied it had ever done anything to intentionally shorten the life of a product.
In other words, the developers are building kernels, OS's, and apps for new hardware, not the old stuff. They do their best to patch things up, but it seems like you want Windows 10 to run on your 486, where XP screamed.
Check your premises.
If the manufacturers are intentionally releasing updates that have a goal of degrading performance on a device, yes, that should be discouraged.
However, if a manufacturer releases an update that is just patches, fixes, new features, what have you, without the intention of degrading performance on a device, but instead as a side effect of the changes, the device's performance is degraded, then we have to say, that's ok.
It would be pretty absurd to expect a old device to run the newest software. This is nothing new in the PC world at least, I certainly wouldn't expect a 486 or Pentium to run Windows 10 all nice and usable.
It would be equally absurd to expect manufacturers from holding back updates that may correct security issues, or other critical bugs. Those updates might degrade performance.
I'm not entire sure I'm comfortable with a court making the call on which side of this fence the update falls on. Intentional performance loss, or just side effect of updates? There'd have to be some pretty solid evidence of the former if it's going to be the call. Apple is definitely guilty of this, among a plethora of other shady activities.
I'm not sure about Samsung, but in Apple's case they were outright denying anything was going on until someone conclusively proved it. The reason for the slowdown was to extend battery life on old phones. Apple, for some reason, didn't want to come out and say this. They also didn't want to give the user an option to choose performance over battery savings (since Apple always knows best).
Word verification: brnkfms
I mean, slowing them down is better than them abruptly shutting off well before 0% due to a weak battery, no?
What should they have done?
I guess if they made it a popup message like:
"Your Phone recently shut off prematurely due to a worn out battery, click here to activate a mode that will limit the maximum power draw of your phone to prevent premature shut off. Note that your performance will be somewhat degraded in this mode, you can change this mode at any time in the settings app."
Something similar to that.
But ultimately the reason they chose to do this was to limit the maximum power draw so that the phone wouldn't shut off before the battery was drained. This was only happening on phones with worn out batteries and replacing the battery brought the performance back to full. Slowdown was simply a necessary side effect of capping the maximum power draw.
We know you're an Apple cult member. Quit trying to tell us you use an iPhone 6 Plus. Maybe you have one in a drawer that you use for regression testing, but face it, you gobbled down a new iPhone X as soon as you found out about the animated feces app.
Sorry to dissapoint you; but my current Apple compliment is:
A mid 2012 MacBook Pro (my current computer); iPhone 6 Plus (my current iPhone); iPad 2 (which I am typing this on); AppleTV 4th gen; a 1.8 DP G5 tower (in my livingroom as an iTunes Server and Security Camera DVR).
And, that's it.
I have some older Apple gear, all the way back to an Apple 1; but none of it is in current use.
Contrary to your damaged Hater brain, not all Apple enthusiasts are rich, effete, fashionistas. For example, my main area of expertise is in embedded development. I have over 4 decades of paid experience in that field.
Your turn...
Batteries. Batteries, batteries, batteries. Batteries.
STOP GLUING WEAR ITEMS INTO OUR DEVICES. IT IS NOT OKAY.
Seriously. It is NOT OKAY that a phone that should last 5-10 years malfunctions in 18 months.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
For a contract to be valid, you must have the option to both agree and decline. Without these two options, it's not a contract or agreement. Not a binding one, at least.
It always seemed like an oversight, but I guess Apple lawyers ae that confident that none of you will ever sue,
If you own a company, though, and you want to bind people to an agreement ... always include a decline button next to the agree button.
You may not pester as many people into agreeing, but at least you can legitimately claim that the people who did agree, agreed, instead of simply gave in to make the daily harrassment stop.