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."

Comments

I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

My S5 was really fast when I got it in 2014. Now it is really slow.

Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[forkfail]

No? Then much as I really hate having to perfectly good hardware as often as it seems that I do, I am not sure that the incompetence and laziness of bloatware kernels and OS's is actually malicious per se.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[forkfail]

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.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary.

I want Windows XP on my 486, but you forcibly upgraded me to Windows 10, and deliberately made it impossible to return to XP.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[forkfail]

You could have refused the upgrade.

But you wouldn't have been able to play the latest version of Candy Crush Saga.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[nehumanuscrede]

You can refuse the upgrade, it will just pester the shit out of you until you give in.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if you leave your computer on and unattended for any length of time, the computer could choose to downgrade to Windows 10 on its own when you are not there to cancel it.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[Shaitan]

"In other words, the developers are building kernels, OS's, and apps for new hardware, not the old stuff."

Huh? That isn't a paraphrase of what you quoted at all. You quoted apple admitting they've intentionally slowed down older phones under the guise of extending battery life.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[sjames]

Given the time frame, it's more like you installed SP3 on your screaming XP machine and performance went to hell.

The other half of the complaint is that they offered the users no way back. So you installed SP3 on your screaming XP machine and performance tanked. But, Surprise, there's no way to go back.

Re:Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[AmiMoJo]

With every new version they add some extra bloat. New built in apps you don't want, new services to deliver ads or DRM infected media. Apps that used to work just fine get updated for the new hardware with twice the RAM and suck on your device.

And then you get the update pushed on you hard. Refusing means stuff stops working and no more security patches for you.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[Anonymous Coward]

As another engineer with experience in mobile chip design, I dont buy a word of it. I never ever heard of a phone maker that had any interest in anything except for newer faster cheaper. Addressing something like worn battery performance was a distant never.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[Tsolias]

Compare android updates to windows service packs, not different windows versions.
Why?
Because the greater the android version is, the more it's java subsystem is polished and/or replaced by native libs.
If a vendor notices a regression on one of their platform, why would they push that update?
Exactly, they'd scrap it, just like LG did with some updates for the lg g4.
Otoh, if you push one update that causes regressions it would be foolish... But to do it on multiple generations it would be on purpose.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[Xenx]

I'm not disagreeing with your point, but it's not as simple as just extending battery life. To be specific, it extends the usable age range of the battery in the overall sense as opposed to the life per charge cycle that most people mean by battery life.

For those that might need/want clarification, the issue is that the phone will shut down when the peak power draw exceeds the capability of the aged battery. This will happen, even when the phone still has what would otherwise be a decent charge left. As the battery ages, it isn't able to maintain the voltage output it used it. By putting limiters on the performance, it's preventing the phone from exceeding the capability of the battery.

Re:Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[Gavagai80]

New Android versions don't get pushed hard on anyone. You usually can't get them if you try.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[joemck]

You can't refuse the upgrade without root, at least on Galaxy S7. You can push "later" for a while, but then the choice disappears, leaving "update now" and "update tonight".

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[Shaitan]

Or even an Apple service center with a reasonable fee, leaving people to discover on their own that third party centers are an option. Then Apple could have still made money and actually looked good for having provided the option of the free software update.... as long as they provided the option to roll back the update they would have come out smelling like roses. At least to everyone but the carriers.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[edwdig]

The slowdown triggers when the power output from the battery drops below a limit. It doesn't just slow down the processor, it can also do things like dim the screen, lower the screen refresh rate, reduce speaker volume, or even disable the camera flash. It's doing these things because if it doesn't, the phone will need more power than the battery can supply, which will trigger the phone to abruptly shut off, regardless of how much charge is left.

The big driver of this wasn't old batteries, but cold weather. Batteries just don't work well in winter weather. There were a ton of brand new iPhone 6S models that were abruptly shutting off and refusing to turn back on when used outside in the winter.

They didn't want people getting stuck outside in the freezing cold unable to use their phones. That's what drove this. My 6S experienced the shutdown problems in the winter plenty of times, even when it was brand new. They stopped after the safeties were added.

You need to really abuse the battery to trigger the slowdown due to age. I had the battery replaced at just under 4 years old, and despite all that use, it still wasn't worn down enough to trigger the slowdown without extreme cold temperatures. They probably expected the vast majority of users to move on to a new phone long before the slowdown got triggered by battery age.

Re:Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[rtb61]

NOTE, they only do this to phones with built in redundancy, lack of user replaceable batteries because yeah, finding out that a battery which everyone knew was absolutely positively going to fail, requires hundreds of dollars and a significant period of lose of use ie buy a new phone instead and be working again, instead of waiting a week or more with out a phone and spending hundreds of dollars on it's repair. No one powers down phones with use replaceable batteries, the user just pops in a new battery no down time and done for pocket change.

The lie that it looks better with a build in battery, a straight fucking lie to force psychopathic redundancy, fuck the planet, fuck the users, more news phones and more toxic rubbish in dumps, woo hoo, more profits and bonuses for psychopaths.

Re: Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[CoolDiscoRex]

Actually, there is no 'decline' button, only 'upgrade now' and 'upgrade later', and since there is no meaningful way to convey to Apple that you do not agree and do not want the update, whiel also being pestered ad-nauseum on the hardware that you own, it throws contract law out altogether, and the subsequent 'agreement' you have to 'agree' to doesn't hold much water.

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.

Re:Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[sonamchauhan]

My iOS upgrade history:

iOS 3.x -> 3.xx --> (Slows down) --> "Don't blame malice where you can blame incompetence"
iOS 3.xx -> iOS 4.x --> (Slows down) --> "Don't blame malice ... where you can blame incompetence"
IOS 4.x -> iOS 5.x --> (Slows down)--> "Don't ... blame .... malice ... where you can blame ... incompetence."
IOS 5.x -> iOS 6.x --> (Slows down) --> "Blame Apple's malice. Blame incompetence - mine - for letting this happen."

Re:Did they put in spin loop on sleep()?

[thegarbz]

I am not sure that the incompetence and laziness of bloatware kernels and OS's is actually malicious per se.

Malicious is not providing a way to get the device to operate as originally purchased. That is all. The slowdown doesn't need to be done on purpose, it just needs to be done without recourse in order for there to be a problem. It's not even a question of support or security, just one of user choice.

Not sure about this

[XxtraLarGe]

So now they have a couple of choices:

1. A. Release software updates that can slow older phones down
2. B. Release software updates only for newer phones

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".

Re:Not sure about this

[Quakeulf]

I am still on iOS 4 for my iPhone 4. It works just as it should, except the Safari browser is gradually phased out and won't display all the unbearably fancy frameworks on most social media websites.

Re:Not sure about this

[forkfail]

You have to be a PHB. I can just imagine the sort of requirements doc you might write:

- Software needs to have new features XYZ.
- Must take full advantage of new hardware.
- Must run faster on old hardware, while providing API's that access kernel functionality specific to new hardware.
- Must be fully supported on all platforms.
- Must be completely backwards compatible.
- Must be able to send email and play MP3s.

Re:Not sure about this

[Shaitan]

Given the next round of moore's law is on track with an ETA of 20yrs there is little to no reason new phones should be appreciably faster than old.

Re:Not sure about this

[parkinglot777]

The OS shouldn't be a problem for you, but applications will. Safari is an application and it will eventually stop working properly. If you think of it, more and more new features come out that browsers nowadays want/need to support. The old one which you have will not understand the message/parameter, and as a result can't display or brokenly displays the content. As long as you use your iPhone as a phone and/or play game offline, then it would still be fine. If you want to link it with nowadays technology, you will need a new one.

Re: Not sure about this

[TheFakeTimCook]

Wow, you aren't very creative. How about option E - give the user a setting you can toggle. Maybe even popup a message letting the user know the battery has degraded and give them the chance to decide whether to turn it on

But wait, what was I thinking. Giving Apple users a choice? I guess that really isn't an option

Fuck off, Hater:

https://support.apple.com/en-u...

That has been there for nearly a YEAR. You might try READING before you make a fucking FOOL of yourself, moron.

Re:Not sure about this

[lgw]

So now they have a couple of choices:
A. Release software updates that can slow older phones down
B. Release software updates only for newer phones

Back in the day, the norm for software was:
* All old versions ever sold are in some way maintained
* Current verson and one version back get features and quality-of-life fixes
* Older version only get security or crash fixes.

That was just was what "professionalism" in software meant. You don't force people to upgrade, though hopefully they'll want the new version.

These days each new version has a worse UI than before, people are forced to change, and old versions are flatly abandoned. This is not a better way.

Re:Not sure about this

[AmiMoJo]

They can just keep the old OS going with security patches. That's pretty much what happens to Android phones once they are out of the manufacturer's update cycle, they just get security fixes from Google Play.

Re:Not sure about this

[epine]

So now they have a couple of choices:

    A. Release software updates that can slow older phones down
    B. Release software updates only for newer phones

Back in the early dark ages—before Microsoft's 30-year war on software quality (the early dark ages weren't great, but this was before the bubonic plague, which sure beat the middle dark ages)—nobody was drinking the Kool-Aid that there were only two options.

If you believe this now, you've been played.

It's funny what you can teach people to take for granted, after a looong trek through the parched Windows desert (not that Microsoft was the only culprit, but they sure blazed the trail).

If only we'd had text back in the day: the CTRL-ALT-DEL shrug emoticon would have flourished like an alien "Roundup" virus on planet Mesoamerica.

Re:Not sure about this

[sjames]

C) Actually pay attention to performance when developing and make it possible to turn off resource heavy new features.

D) Adopt a tiered system like Debian where Stable only gets bug fixes and perhaps backports.

Add in user replaceable batteries or at least make it easy for a moderately skilled tech to do it without crazy special tools or resorting to grey market parts.

Re: Not sure about this

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't understand how electronic things work. You can restore the phone to full speed by replacing the battery. This "defective" (according to you) design allows you to continue using your existing battery for longer than it would otherwise last, if the iPhone didn't do this.

Here's the list of options that Apple could have implemented:

1. Do nothing. Let the phone spontaneously brownout/reboot any time a high processor load is placed on the unit. Potentially allow the flash memory to be corrupted (which it CAN if it browns out during an erase or write operation), resulting in the phone never booting again.
2. Lock out all apps (to prevent reboots, since you don't know which apps can cause a reboot), or just stop booting, until the battery is replaced.
3. Force the unit into deeper power saving modes until the battery has been replaced.

I am not an Apple fanboy, but I believe that they made the correct choice here.

Re: Not sure about this

[TheFakeTimCook]

Fuck off, Hater:

Get the hell out of here, cultist creep.

Isn't your new Apple e-meter app just waiting there for you to plug into it?

E-Meter? That's a good one!

Re:Not sure about this

[Waccoon]

Are we that used to updates slowing down our devices we've just accepted, blindly, that good design is impossible?

Maybe a simple security update shouldn't require a complete database rebuild, staged over several days.

Re:Not sure about this

[dublin]

No, I'd say at least half the problem is that these manufacturers (especially Apple) deliberately *prevent* owners of their products from ever "downgrading" to restore previous functionality. Apple regularly revokes signatures for older releases when a new one comes out, so if an "upgrade" horks your phone, too bad, so sad - you're stuck. (Without having to resort to hacky stuff - the point is that ordinary users should be able to restore prior function after they discover an "upgrade" actually destroys the usability of their device.)

Re:Not sure about this

[thegarbz]

So now they have a couple of choices:

        A. Release software updates that can slow older phones down
        B. Release software updates only for newer phones

I'll go with C. Release software updates that can slow older phones and provide users the option to not install them and to downgrade (upgrade?) to the previous version if they see fit.

Nope

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

That way they should constantly fine almost all the software companies in the world because almost all of them deliberately slow their their software products all the time. Some programs are occasionally getting faster (e.g. web browsers, video encoders, compression software, etc.) but that's an exception.

Re:Nope

[Moof123]

At least let us downgrade back if we get upgraders remorse. I agree with that bit fully.

Re:Nope

[i.r.id10t]

IIRC... it took my 286 running DOS 6.x about a minute to boot and become usable. Today, with exponentially more resources, it takes about a minute for my Linux and OS X desktops to boot and become usable. I won't bother trying to compare Windows 10 since my only experience are the work machines and they have do do all sorts of domain stuff before being usable, but Win 7 was about that on a laptop on a fresh install.

One of the neatest things was when I got one of the brand new first of Pentium 2 machines - 350mhz with 128mb of ram (late '98). Just for giggles we wiped the drive and put DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 and played for a few hours. Goodness, this is what computing speed was promised to me! If you have old install media for Win2k or NT4, or even XP, try creating a VM in VirtualBox/VMWare and giving it a couple of virutal CPUs and maximum supported memory.

Re:Nope

[thegarbz]

That way they should constantly fine almost all the software companies in the world because almost all of them deliberately slow their their software products all the time.

Nope. The fine here was not that new software is slow, but that the new software was forced without recourse. Most other software company provides some way to install their old software.

Nice bribes

[Quakeulf]

Those pitiful sums won't stop them from doing it for as long as they are not physically restrained from scamming naive customers.

$5 million

[DalM]

That's about what Apple spends on plastic wrap for the pallets of cash that Europe sends it daily for their products.

Are updates mandatory?

[Balial]

If you really like your phone the way it is and are worried about slow downs, don't update. It's that simple.

More features == more bloat == slower than the previous software on the same hardware. This has been true since the dawn of computing.

Re:Are updates mandatory?

[TheFakeTimCook]

If you really like your phone the way it is and are worried about slow downs, don't update. It's that simple.

More features == more bloat == slower than the previous software on the same hardware. This has been true since the dawn of computing.

Not in the case of IOS 12.

It actually runs (much!) FASTER than even the ORIGINAL iOS version on my iPhone 6 Plus.

Now what?

Re:Are updates mandatory?

[TheFakeTimCook]

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...

Re:Are updates mandatory?

[dublin]

Agreed - iOS 12 is definitely an outlier, to the point that I'm thinking I may never allow it to update. (Apple's famous for Fall updates that cripple the performance of phones, driving Christmas sales...)

I bought an iPhone SE (basically, a 6s that actually fits in a pocket) as soon as they came out with the 128GB version, and it's definitely quicker after the upgrade to 12... What I'd really like, though is a setting that says, "NEVER upgrade my phone automatically - let me decide what version to upgrade to, and when!"

Re:Are updates mandatory?

[TheFakeTimCook]

Agreed - iOS 12 is definitely an outlier, to the point that I'm thinking I may never allow it to update. (Apple's famous for Fall updates that cripple the performance of phones, driving Christmas sales...)

I bought an iPhone SE (basically, a 6s that actually fits in a pocket) as soon as they came out with the 128GB version, and it's definitely quicker after the upgrade to 12... What I'd really like, though is a setting that says, "NEVER upgrade my phone automatically - let me decide what version to upgrade to, and when!"

ALL you have to do is to never let it update. It will eventually get the idea, and stop pestering you to update.

It does take awhile, though.

Italian Legal System

[Thelasko]

I would like to remind everyone that the Italian legal system is the same one that tried to put geologists in jail for an earthquake, and tried Amanda Knox for murder despite already convicting another person for that crime.

Let me know when another country reaches the same findings, because I don't have confidence in Italian courts.

Re:Italian Legal System

[TheFakeTimCook]

I would like to remind everyone that the Italian legal system is the same one that tried to put geologists in jail for an earthquake, and tried Amanda Knox for murder despite already convicting another person for that crime.
Let me know when another country reaches the same findings, because I don't have confidence in Italian courts.

Exactly.

The Italians are notoriously corrupt and quite frankly, a little stupid, when it comes to their politics and courts.

Not that they have a stranglehold on those problems, especially in these days of Trump; but they seem to have more experience at it...

Re:Italian Legal System

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Italian Legal System

[AmiMoJo]

The very first sentence of your own link:

"The man accused of sending a group of scientists to the central Italian city of Lâ(TM)Aquila in 2009 to falsely reassure citizens that no major earthquake was about to strike"

The issue was that they told people there was little risk, which resulted in them not taking precautions. They were not prosecuted "for an earthquake", as you suggest.

Their legal system has enough issues for you not to have to strawman it.

As for Knox, in most European countries it is possible for two people to convicted of the same murder. Even if only one of them physically murdered the victim the law considers being closely involved, as it is alleged that she was, is also murder. That's how the law works here, maybe in the US it would be "accessory to murder" or something, I'm not an expert.

Re:Italian Legal System

[Cmdln Daco]

I wouldn't call apple cultists 'corrupt.' They're smarmy, pointedly ironic, always just a little bit out-of-style because to do otherwise would be so gauche. They've been that way, little 'alternative' poindexter types, going waaaay back to the days when there was just one little store in every major metropolis that sold the Macintoshes, and a little muffin fan for sale there, to shove into the hand-hold of your Mac Plus, was $300.00. (because Steve said you didn't get a fan, but you knew you needed one)

Re:Italian Legal System

[thegarbz]

Why does another country need to reach the same findings? Just because you found two cases you misinterpreted (and you did grossly misinterpret them) doesn't invalidate the entire legal system.

Money stream

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news, EU finds that suing big companies makes a great money stream.

Re:Money stream

[TheFakeTimCook]

In other news, EU finds that suing big companies makes a great money stream.

That was my first thought, too.

Re:Money stream

[Anonymous Coward]

$1.3bn https://www.cbsnews.com/news/frances-societe-generale-hit-with-1-3b-in-u-s-fines/
$1.7bn https://www.gsmarena.com/zte_to_pay_17_billion_in_fines_to_the_us_government_needs_to_replace_its_execs-news-31448.php
$853mn https://www.rt.com/business/439619-us-fines-petrobras-corruption/
$30bn https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-uk-volkswagen-emissions/vws-dieselgate-bill-hits-30-bln-after-another-charge-idUSKCN1C4271
Want me to continue?

Re:Money stream

[aybiss]

Well the US is going around the world forcing people into trade deals that let the companies sue the government. I guess they are just trying to get ahead of the curve.

Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[TheFakeTimCook]

This ruling is proof-positive that Courts, by and large, (and definitely this Court) do not understand "Tech".

I don't know about Google; but in the case of Apple:

Apple explained what their "motivations" were (which was to provide the User with an OVERALL more RELIABLE experience). Court OBVIOUSLY didn't get it.

Many, many instances of people with NON-clock-speed-managed phones (both Apple AND Android) having their phones showing what appeared to be "plenty" of battery charge suddenly reboot due to a voltage-dip from a sudden spike in CPU/GPU load. Court OBVIOUSLY didn't understand batteries, physics, nor di/dt issues in digital electronics.

Apple has already explained and given the User the CHOICE to "live dangerously" (by electing to disable this part of power-management). Court OBVIOUSLY didn't understand this.

Apple has already mitigated the root-cause of the matter (battery-aging), which again, is a fact of PHYSICS, by offering low-cost battery replacements to ANY of the "affected" phones.

Apple has gone to great lengths to release a version of IOS that SPECIFICALLY (and quite frankly, dramatically) IMPROVES the overall PERFORMANCE of OLDER PHONES, not by removing any "slowdowns"; but by running-around and seeing where they could make individual processes more efficient, and also by decreasing the amount of "ramp up" time for clock-speed in response to greater loads. (one spec I saw took that ramp-up time from 450ms to 80ms. Those things add-up...)

Apple is now supporting SEVEN generations of the iPhone (and about 5 generations of iPad) with the latest version of IOS 12 (the same IOS 12 that specifically and vastly IMPROVES the performance of OLDER devices).

So, tell me: How was ANY of this "Anti-Consumer"? How was ANY of this "In furtherance of a plot to trick people into Upgrading unnecessarily?"

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[cob666]

I completely agree with your sentiments here. Not only courts, but most people in general do not understand the interplay between hardware and software. They have a 3 or 4 years old iPhone but still want to run the latest and greatest OS, which was written to take advantage of newer gen hardware and then they wonder why their iDevice seems to be running slower. While I do NOT agree with everything that Apple does in regards to their product development, I will agree that they have tried to be very transparent about battery degradation and building options to make sure that the batter isn't over taxed, resulting in a hard shut down.

I guess the only thing Apple can do now is to put out a statement indicating that installing a new operating system MAY result in performance degradations in older generation hardware.

Don't even get me started on the morons that install beta 1 of a new major version OS and then complain that all their third party applications don't run!

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[fluffernutter]

Man, makes you wonder how Microsoft Windows ever got off the ground; or Linux for that matter. All that old hardware they support somehow.

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[TheFakeTimCook]

So, tell me: How was ANY of this "Anti-Consumer"? How was ANY of this "In furtherance of a plot to trick people into Upgrading unnecessarily?"

In Apple case, this wouldn't be a problem if the user could replace the battery. Batteries get old, let the users change it.

There are about a zillion YouTube videos on how to replace an iPhone battery. Funny how THOSE people can do it...

Apple hasn't GLUED batteries in for quite some time now. They use "releaseable" double-stick tape, like that 3M "Command" adhesive.

Afterall, the only reason those measures are there is to keep the battery from rattling around in the case.

Only stupid people like you think it is anti-consumer.

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[fluffernutter]

I don't really see how that makes a difference. Doesn't matter where the power comes from.

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[dublin]

I'm for the courts here, because the right to downgrade firmware to restore functionality is at least as important as the right to repair.

I'm against government intervention, but would be in favor of laws that require batteries to be replaceable. (Interestingly, this is less of a problem with phones than with tablet-type devices like iPads and Surfaces...)

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[thegarbz]

The fact you think this about battery management shows you don't understand the courts, or the ruling, or what was even being argued.

But hey, fanboi gotta fanboi even if it is just talking about irrelevant garbage.

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[thegarbz]

I completely agree with your sentiments here.

So you also don't understand the court decision?

They have a 3 or 4 years old iPhone but still want to run the latest and greatest OS

Actually the court ruling was specifically about NOT wanting to run the latest and greatest OS, and not being given the option.

I guess the only thing Apple can do now is to put out a statement indicating that installing a new operating system MAY result in performance degradations in older generation hardware.

Or they could provide users the choice of not upgrading and make the factory reset options actually reset the phone to factory settings and work the way it did when the user originally purchased it.

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[Translation Error]

Slowing down a phone because the old battery can't handle the load is fine. It becomes a problem when customers come in saying their old phone is slow and Apple's reps says, "It's time to buy a new phone!" instead of, "Oh, the battery is old, want us to replace that for you?" This turns a helpful feature into a tool to get people to believe they need to replace their perfectly good older phone with an expensive new one--largely due to your software actively slowing it down.

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[TheFakeTimCook]

I'm for the courts here, because the right to downgrade firmware to restore functionality is at least as important as the right to repair.

I'm against government intervention, but would be in favor of laws that require batteries to be replaceable. (Interestingly, this is less of a problem with phones than with tablet-type devices like iPads and Surfaces...)

iPhones and iPads HAVE replaceable batteries. I don't know where that meme started; but it simply isn't true.

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[TheFakeTimCook]

The fact you think this about battery management shows you don't understand the courts, or the ruling, or what was even being argued.

But hey, fanboi gotta fanboi even if it is just talking about irrelevant garbage.

It IS about battery management; or more correctly, the MISUNDERTANDING regarding battery management.

Re:Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[TheFakeTimCook]

Slowing down a phone because the old battery can't handle the load is fine. It becomes a problem when customers come in saying their old phone is slow and Apple's reps says, "It's time to buy a new phone!" instead of, "Oh, the battery is old, want us to replace that for you?" This turns a helpful feature into a tool to get people to believe they need to replace their perfectly good older phone with an expensive new one--largely due to your software actively slowing it down.

I would agree, IF that was true; but, considering that Apple salespeople are NOT commissioned, there is very little incentive for them to "push" an Upgrade rather than a battery replacement.

Show me more than a couple overzealous employees taking it upon themselves to lie to customers like that, or it is just that: An overzealous employee or two. NOT a corporate policy (hidden or otherwise).

Re: Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[Anubis IV]

The slowdown was applied in v10.2.1. The setting to deactivate the slowdown was applied in v11. The number of devices that 10.2.1 affected is far greater than the number eligible for v11 and beyond.

Not true. The peak power draw fix (what you're referring to as a "slowdown") was only applied to the iPhone 6 and newer models, every single one of which is eligible for both iOS 11 and iOS 12, and most or all of which will almost certainly be eligible for iOS 13 next year. As such, and contrary to your claim, literally every device affected was eligible for iOS 11 and beyond.

It's true that a number of phones (i.e. all 32-bit models) got cut off by upgrade from iOS 10 to iOS 11, but not a single one of them were affected by the "slowdown", and some devices that weren't affected (e.g. the 2013 iPhone 5s that I still use as my everyday phone) were eligible for the upgrade regardless. If anything, my 5s has been running faster and getting better battery life ever since upgrading to iOS 12, despite the fact that it was never affected.

Re: Courts Do Not Understand Tech

[Anubis IV]

This is a lie. I am literally holding one of the 32-bit devices to which the final update of v10.2.1 was applied. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I don't know what you're holding, but it isn't a 32-bit device stuck on 10.2.1, since there aren't any 32-bit devices that had 10.2.1 as their final update. Every single 32-bit device eligible for 10.2.1 was eligible for updates through at least 10.3.3.

Otherwise, reading comprehension clearly isn't your strong suit. I already said that all 32-bit models were cut off at iOS 10, but I also pointed out that none of them were affected by the stuff related to the battery. The "slowdown" was a feature limited to iPhone 6 and newer devices running iOS 10.2.1 and later. No 32-bit devices ever received the "slowdown" in the first place, meaning that none of them were ever affected by it, meaning that there was never a need for them to have an ability to deactivate it, meaning that they don't need iOS 11 in order to avoid the "slowdown". They're fine where they are on iOS 10.

Moreover, I'm not sure what your link is supposed to prove, given that it's only a few sentences long, none of which actually addresses anything I said.

Next issue please

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Next up: I quit Verizon on my tablet after 3 years of a 2 year contract. When the final month was up, all app-based video (read: Netflix, YouTube, AMC, etc.) broke.

I am guessing the system video (HTML 5?) utility needs to call home to Verizon each video segment, fails, and the video ends or jumps back randomly.

Why, Verizon and Samsung? Why?

If they can't update the new phones

[Pollux]

Then they'll just stop updating them. Heck, that's what Apple did with the iPhone 1 and the 3G, where each respective last-supported iOS version was released about 2 1/2 years after that iPhone's debut date. Certainly a safer alternative than getting sued for maintaining older hardware, and it still encourages consumers to replace their phones.

Re:If they can't update the new phones

[TheFakeTimCook]

Then they'll just stop updating them. Heck, that's what Apple did with the iPhone 1 and the 3G, where each respective last-supported iOS version was released about 2 1/2 years after that iPhone's debut date. Certainly a safer alternative than getting sued for maintaining older hardware, and it still encourages consumers to replace their phones.

That was over a DECADE ago.

Let it go.

This really happened

[Anonymous Coward]

Several years ago, I upgraded a friend's iPhone 3GS to a later version of iOS (not sure which one). But after that the 3GS crawled to a halt. It was no longer useable. Everything was slow on it. Unfortunately, I did not make a backup of it beforehand (doh!) and I soon learned that unlike Android, Apple did not provide factory installation images for it. So my friend finally gave up and upgraded to an iPhone 4 (the one with antennagate). Apple really did seem to be providing iOS upgrades which made older but still supported iPhones so slow that users had to buy a new phone.

battery conservation

[goombah99]

How many times do people have to explain that slowing it sown when the battery is weak is a good idea, should be the default, and it should perhaps allow an override. But an override is not expected initially in the software because over draining a Li battery is dangerous. So maybe you llow som over ride but only after you have studied the issue more.

Apple and I assume samsung were acting in good faith here.

Re:battery conservation

[Pentium100]

Slowing down like this is unacceptable IMO.

Yes, you can have a setting that slows the phone down to make it use less power. Hell, you can enable it by default. As long as I can go and disable it. If I find out that the battery then does not last long enough, I'll get the battery replaced - even if it takes special tools to take the phone apart, the phone is not potted and the battery can be replaced.

If the phone is deliberately slowed down with no way to undo it, then even if I replace the battery the phone will be slow (though probably last longer than new).

Over draining a single cell Li battery is not as dangerous as overcharging or reverse charging (happens when you over drain a multi cell battery). However, even for an old battery the cutoff voltage is the same, and I presume that none of Apple and Samsung phones work right down to 0V.

So, having an old battery and full speed phone will only result in the battery discharging faster and the phone turning off. If the battery is really weak (internal resistance too high), the phone might start shutting down when there is higher CPU usage or during a call, but work OK after your turn it back on (this usually is when I replace the battery).

So, what Apple is doing is obfuscating the real and noticeable problem (old battery) which can be fixed by replacing the battery by creating an artificial and less directly noticeable problem of the phone just working slower, which causes the owner to think that the phone is just slow and go buy a new one instead of replacing the battery.

Re:battery conservation

[tlhIngan]

If the phone is deliberately slowed down with no way to undo it, then even if I replace the battery the phone will be slow (though probably last longer than new).

The phone is slowed because the battery cannot handle the load. If you change the battery, the slowdown doesn't happen anymore. It's how people found it out.

When iOS boots, it sets a flag. If it boots successfully, then the flag is cleared. But if it fails and resets due to power brownouts, then iOS implements the slowdown.

This way even with a weak battery you can still use it.

Most phones don't do this. You may remember the Nexus 6P as entering a "boot loop" where it would boot, then restart without booting all the way. This is what happens if you don't control your power consumption. It boots, then comes to a part where it needs to draw a lot of power. The battery fails and the power IC detects the voltage drop and triggers a brownout reset. This causes the system to restart and attempt to boot again, where it reaches the same spot, dies, resets, etc.

The fix that some people came up with was disabling the high power CPU cores, which means the phone slows down, but it allows the phone to boot because the low power cores draw much less power so the battery can boot the OS all the way. But now your phone is slower.

There's no real answer to the problem. You either end up with a phone needing a battery replacement because it can't boot all the way or you have a slower phone. Honestly, the slower phone seems like the better outcome as it ensures you have a phone and not a brick. At least you'll be able to make an emergency call if you need to. It does allow you to use the phone lower than you would otherwise - if you had a boot looping phone, you must change the battery or get a new phone. If you have a slow phone, you may just hang onto it longer since it still works.

It goes both ways, really. You can be a cynic and think it's to force sales of new phones (though leaving the code out would do the same thing - the phone just stops working because it can't boot, so that's a far easier way to do it)

Re:battery conservation

[Cmdln Daco]

The slider should go all the way to 'disable Anonymous Coward access on Slashdot.'

If the manufacturer has a legal obligation to increase safety, they should sell the phone sealed in a block of Lucite to begin with. Then all sorts of risks the user will be exposed to are eliminated. (of course, for the typical Apple customer this might not be enough)

Re:battery conservation

[Pentium100]

Honestly, the slower phone seems like the better outcome as it ensures you have a phone and not a brick

Yes, it does seem like a better option with one requirement - that I am notified that I need to replace the battery. I can then decide if I want to do it (or use the slow phone, or buy a new phone), but I should know about the problem.

At least when the phone fails to boot or randomly shuts off, I know there is a problem and can bring the phone to a repair shop to fix it. If the phone just slows down, I may not notice it at first (if the slowdown is gradual) or think that the software update is bloated and inefficient (if it is very noticeable immediately).

Re:battery conservation

[AmiMoJo]

The correct solution is to use the right battery. Specify a battery that can deliver the required current even when it is aged.

Clearly Apple did not test this properly. If they had they would have build the slow down in from the start. Other manufacturers fit larger batteries that are able to deliver more current, mitigating the problem.

In Google's case the fix was to change the battery. Apple saved themselves a large amount of money by not doing that. Newer models learned from this mistake and switched to using either better single batteries or dual batteries.

now crack down on battery slow downs and error 53

[Joe_Dragon]

now crack down on battery slow downs and error 53 BS!

Somewhat disturbing

[duke_cheetah2003]

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.

Re:Somewhat disturbing

[jezwel]

>

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.

If Microsoft designed Win10 to run on 486s and advertised the minimium recommended spec as a 486, then yes you would.
This is a compatible OS updates to hardware that was running the OS fine previously, and not so fine afterwards. (I see this myself on my old Galaxy S5).

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.

This is the conundrum. Perhaps these updates need to be split out so so that users can install them individually, with notification of the expected performance hit that the update would give?

Re:Somewhat disturbing

[duke_cheetah2003]

Perhaps these updates need to be split out so so that users can install them individually, with notification of the expected performance hit that the update would give?

We've been down this road before. Users cannot be trusted to make informed decisions regarding which updates to install, and which to avoid. This is precisely why Microsoft has shifted from user-controlled updates to "you will update when we say so." Because users can't be trusted to make the right choices. How could they? Most people have no flippin' clue.

The unfortunate side-effect of aiming things toward the masses is the people like pretty much everyone on this site, whom do have a clue, are stuck with the end-user experience that forces us to do updates we know are stupid and unnecessary.

What should they have done?

[SirMasterboy]

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.

Re:What should they have done?

[Moof123]

The hardware as shipped was faulty. The fix/patch was to throttle, which was not disclosed to the customers.. Apple should have tested the phone with a simulation of a degraded battery and fixed the issue before shipping, perhaps with slower initial performance or with a better voltage regulator design that would handle a bigger battery droop with a degraded battery at full load.

Perhaps the fix should have been a motherboard replacement.

Re:What should they have done?

[thegarbz]

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?

Not talked about the battery issue since it had nothing to do with why they were in court.

Re:Wait, SAMSUNG?

[dohzer]

Is there any way we can fine Samsung for slowing *new* phones with their bloatware, none of which anyone actually uses?
Give me a clean Android install any day, and let me decide which apps to install.

restoration is the crux

[epine]

There's a simple low-hanging fruit here: simply pass a law that software products much support reversion to any version the user might have previously installed.

And if the manufacturer wants to scrub an old version from the face of the planet (say, for example, they infringed a patent), then they must provide the old version with only those fixes, or only those fixes with substantially the same performance profile, plug-in API, and UI layout, etc. (though it might be built on a later release which is more feature rich, at the manufacturer's choice).

Second, we repeal prohibitions against reverse engineering if the default install of the best-available older release can be rooted right out of the box by a known exploit that's more than a year old. (If you won't fix it, the government is providing no assistance through the legal system to help you prevent your customers from fixing it themselves; and if they publicise any of your trade secrets in the process, so be it, that cat is now forevermore out of the bag.)

Note that we're not making anyone fix anything.

We're making the corporations do precisely one thing: support older products by allowing original firmware to be reinstalled (original firmware, or narrowly patched original firmware, preserving operational characteristics and user experience).

And we're also saying: if you can't eff yourself to make your default install secure, and you also won't eff yourself to amend your mistakes once they come to light (surely there weren't so many that this instantly drives you out of business), don't come begging to the fiat power of government to shelter your half-ass trade secrets.

This would create an a much-needed incentive structure for companies with half trillion dollar market caps to tempt their customers to embrace the future with carrots rather than sticks.

The Wild West of the smartphone explosion is long over now.

It's high time for a more studied pace of product churn, one where security gets equal shrift.

Note also that leaves innumerable loopholes available for software corporations to continue to shit on their user bases. But the shenanigans will be a little bit more out in the open, and easier to ridicule, and hence more effectively policed by the court of public opinion (which is where this should and would be litigated, if the court of public opinion was lifted off the mat).

Slow Down or Crash?

[foxalopex]

I seem to recall this isn't a new problem. The issue is that as the battery ages, some batteries aren't able to supply as much power under peak load. If you don't slow down the processor it with literally overwhelm the battery and the phone will crash or lock up!

Even the blind hog gets the acorn

[rsilvergun]

Europe is really, really big on stopping planned obsolescence. A friend of a friend worked for one of the big printer manufactures. Their printers lasted 5x longer in Europe and could be serviced without hacking DRM.

It's not about fines, it's about landfills. The US has so much space we can dump crap far enough away from the water table that it's not a problem for 50 years (it takes about that long for a city to grow out to where the dumps are). Europe doesn't have that luxury.

That was fine when software was new

[rsilvergun]

and you always had more customers. I worked for a print shop that had this little invoicing package. Spent some time hacking printer drivers to get it to print correctly because the manufacturer was out of business. Once they'd sold the software to every small print shop in the country they had nowhere to go. And the software mostly just worked, so no reason to upgrade. Yeah, eventually I had to do that printer driver hack, but that was 10 years after the company went belly up.

Apple was doing the latter

[rsilvergun]

not the former. They were intentionally slowing the device to make the battery last longer. This was done to minimize the negative perception of a non-replaceable battery. They avoided telling people about it because doing so would hurt sales (which, judging by the results of the iPhone X seems to have happened).

I'm with Europe on this one. Keep your junk with it's heavy metals out of my land fills and water table.

They should have told people what they were doing

[rsilvergun]

and given them the option to buy a new battery.

The point of this was to hide the downside of a non-replaceable battery. A user replaceable battery is a competitive edge when you know it will impact performance over the life of the phone.

Re:They should have told people what they were doi

[SirMasterboy]

They did give you the option to get a new battery.

For the really defective models they offered a free battery replacement. I got one for my iPhone 6s.

For models that were less affected they offered battery replacement for $29 instead of the normal $79.

You can still claim these battery replacement offers at this moment too.

https://www.apple.com/iphone-b...

Batteries

[nightfire-unique]

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.

Re:Batteries

[thegarbz]

Nothing to do with batteries, stop freaking out about Tim Cook's strawman.

IOS 12 on a 6Plus Re:Are updates mandatory?

[Camembert]

Yes, I was also pleasantly surprised how IOS12 made my 4 year old 6 Plus run smoothly and quick enough. It actually makes me delay replacing the phone for at least another year.

Re:IOS 12 on a 6Plus Re:Are updates mandatory?

[TheFakeTimCook]

Yes, I was also pleasantly surprised how IOS12 made my 4 year old 6 Plus run smoothly and quick enough.
It actually makes me delay replacing the phone for at least another year.

Exactly how I felt!

And there is review after review about the speed up of old hardware.

But, FACTS never got in the way of HATERS on Slashdot!

Re:Check your mail for Trump Bombs !

[adhdengineer]

surely it was a russian impersonating a republican operative impersonating a democrat

restoring original functionality

[sad_]

what does this mean, that you can revert back to the initial state?
why would you want that? that image is out of date, including a lot of security problems.
the problem isn't the os (at least on android), but the crap vendors put on top of it.
my samsung phones include so much rubbish, battery life is limited to one day.
when i installed a clean custom rom on it, it lasted for days.
my S4 is still going strong, despite it being many years old.

Only after they got caught

[rsilvergun]

Yes, I could always get a new battery, but I had no reason to think doing so would solve the performance problems and every reason to think I needed a new phone. I actually did this with my Kid's phone (for me I just got an Android).

Re:Only after they got caught

[SirMasterboy]

Well to be fair also they have had this message for awhile.

https://cdn.cultofmac.com/wp-c...

Or they could just make a replaceable battery

[rsilvergun]

Motorola & LG have no problem with this. I don't even mind if I have to take it to a repair shop so long as I get to pick the shop.