Hacker News Reader

Comment by mlindner | Hacker News Reader

You're not understanding the issue here. This had nothing to do with how fast the battery degrades. This was only ever about how the phone acts with an already degraded battery. The two choices are 1. Shut off the phone suddenly if any high performance tasks are attempted 2. Throttle the phone performance to keep it from shutting off.

Apple chose #2, which is best for customers, and got forced to pay $113M from it. It's ridiculous.

View on HN

Apple chose to silently degrade the performance of their device, which would lead customers to think that their device wasn't capable of keeping up anymore, rather than that they just needed to change the battery. My guess is that they made a good portion of $113M from this (it's best for customers to drain their bank accounts) so no need to cry for them.

edit: and I'm reading that this would happen within the warranty period. It's best for customers to keep them from getting their device fixed during the warranty period.

> Apple chose #2, which is best for customers, and got forced to pay $113M from it. It's ridiculous.

You're missing out the part where they did not inform the user why their device was being throttled and nor did their internal tooling inform the genius that a simple battery change can fix the issue.

Option 3: Inform customers of the problem and let them decide if they prefer the shutdowns, throttling, or to simply pay for a battery replacement.

This is what they did in the end, and is the state of affairs today. It's transparent, fair and honest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com