[Just_Me_D]

You keep defending the indefensible. Apple screwed over its customers. Period. There's no way around it. Customers had no idea that they could replace the battery for $79. They were led to believe that they had to upgrade their devices. Even Apple's customer support didn't bring up replacing the battery when people were complaining about slowdowns.

So if someone entered an Apple Store saying that their phone isn’t as fast as it used to be, especially after it updated to iOS 11, and then started looking around at the newer model iPhone and telling the genius that he wanted his current iPhone to be as fast as the newer ones. If the genius tells the customer that although he could fix the problem with the old phone, it will never be as fast as the newer phone, is it a lie? In addition, if the customer opts to buy the new phone, even after the genius stated that he could fix the problem with the old one, where’s the problem?

Granted, I can’t prove that my example actually occurred, but you also can’t prove that it didn’t.

[anon(5630457)]

So if someone entered an Apple Store saying that their phone isn’t as fast as it used to be, especially after it updated to iOS 11, and then started looking around at the newer model iPhone and telling the genius that he wanted his current iPhone to be as fast as the newer ones. If the genius tells the customer that although he could fix the problem with the old phone, it will never be as fast as the newer phone, is it a lie? In addition, if the customer opts to buy the new phone, even after the genius stated that he could fix the problem with the old one, where’s the problem?

Granted, I can’t prove that my example actually occurred, but you also can’t prove that it didn’t.

False equivalency.

1. New tech will always be faster than older tech, or at least it should be.
2. The point: Apple NEVER gave anyone the option to replace the battery in their phone when it slowed down. They never told anyone replacing the battery would take care of the slowdown issue.
3. Defending Apple with this is reprehensible, especially since they screwed over its customers out of over a billion dollars by making them upgrade.

[Just_Me_D]

False equivalency.

1. New tech will always be faster than older tech, or at least it should be.

. Agreed

2. The point: Apple NEVER gave anyone the option to replace the battery in their phone when it slowed down. They never told anyone replacing the battery would take care of the slowdown issue.

Do you have definitive proof that EVERYONE who entered an Apple Store with the issue you mentioned was never informed that replacing the battery may or would fix the problem?

3. Defending Apple with this is reprehensible, especially since they screwed over its customers out of over a billion dollars by making them upgrade.

Not agreeing with the claims you make is not the same as defending Apple. Apple the entity may have withheld information, but there is no way for you to know what customers were told by the Genius’ that work in their retail stores. Now in regard to “making them upgrade”, No retail establishment is going to make people do anything. The most they can do is recommend. The choice to upgrade rests with the customer which brings me back to my previous example in which you called a “false equivalency”.

[Tartarus]

False equivalency.

3. Defending Apple with this is reprehensible, especially since they screwed over its customers out of over a billion dollars by making them upgrade.

This did not happen. Those customers were gonna upgrade anyway. Most customers do this every year or 2 years, 3 at most. The ones that hold on longer to their device simply don’t care about speed at all and won’t upgrade anyway.

Of those customers that did upgrade, have either sold their devices to someone and got money for it, or they passed it down to someone. Those devices were not demolished or thrown away because they were slow. In case it was resold the reseller got money for it, which makes your claim of billions of dollars exaggerated at best.

[mavsguy842]

I’ve only got a couple of things to add. Firstly, do we know that Apple can make a profit with $29 battery replacements? Taking into account the cost of the battery, shipping, and labor I’d be surprised if they were even breaking even.

Second, this is something I’ve struggled to put into words, so it might not come out just how I’m feeling, but I’ll give it a go. A person who has a 2 or 3 year old iPhone and prefers to replace their battery instead of buying a new iPhone is not a good customer. They’re marginal at best. Apple’s best customers are the kind who walk into an Apple Store and walk out with something new other than a battery.

[scruffypig]

False equivalency.

1. New tech will always be faster than older tech, or at least it should be.
2. The point: Apple NEVER gave anyone the option to replace the battery in their phone when it slowed down. They never told anyone replacing the battery would take care of the slowdown issue.
3. Defending Apple with this is reprehensible, especially since they screwed over its customers out of over a billion dollars by making them upgrade.

That isn’t true. Apple gives that option to replace their battery if necessary. Apple offered a battery replacement program for certain iPhone 6S’s with batteries determined to be potentially problematic. I had no idea really about it when I took my iPhone 6S in to my local Apple certified repair center just asking questions about performance. They replaced mine for free, out of warranty.

[phlamethrowre]

If you’re defending Apple on this you might be a fanboy. If you see it for what it really is don’t waste your time debating it here. It’s pointless.

[SprSynJn]

It's specifically part of the purchasing package. It's not "entitlement". If I spend $1K on a device, it better get timely software updates. This is not a compromise. It's Apple's responsibility to protect its consumers from the vast amount of hackers, bugs, and exploits that are out there. It's flabbergasting that you'd even write what you wrote.

A lot of Android enthusiasts do not purchase LG, Samsung, or HTC Android phones because the companies don't update the software in a timely matter, or even at all. People expect it, and I do not think it's unreasonable to expect that, especially when anyone drops $800-$1200 on a device. Now, when we purchase a computer, we expect it to be protected from the latest exploits or hacks, right? It's not unreasonable to expect the same thing from a phone manufacturer.

There’s a whole lot of wishful thinking in that long post. Might as well stop buying computers altogether my friend. You’re just going to be let down.

[Just_Me_D]

There’s a whole lot of wishful thinking in that long post. Might as well stop buying computers altogether my friend. You’re just going to be let down.

Yeah, it’s like expecting your $350,000 home to automatically come furnished as well as protect you from burglars simply because of its price. It’s like some kids today who want to be adults without the responsibilities that come with being an adult. Know what I mean?

[anon(5630457)]

There’s a whole lot of wishful thinking in that long post. Might as well stop buying computers altogether my friend. You’re just going to be let down.

What? You mean your computer doesn't get any updates? You're getting screwed then. Both of my Windows laptops get updates at least once a month, maybe even more. Wishful thinking? No. It's realistic.

[anon(5630457)]

Yeah, it’s like expecting your $350,000 home to automatically come furnished as well as protect you from burglars simply because of its price. It’s like some kids today who want to be adults without the responsibilities that come with being an adult. Know what I mean?

Again with the false analogies.

[SprSynJn]

What? You mean your computer doesn't get any updates? You're getting screwed then. Both of my Windows laptops get updates at least once a month, maybe even more. Wishful thinking? No. It's realistic.

Nothing is going to prevent your computer from being prone to hacks bro. I’m sorry, but you’re simply naive to believe so. Updates are common, but they aren’t required. What you bought at the time of purchase is what you got. Nothing more.

And his “false analogies” are spot on. You just don’t agree with them.

[BreakingKayfabe]

Again with the false analogies.

Yeah. I get where he's coming from but this is just switching the narrative and arguing pure hyperbole. It's a dense and bad comparison.

[Just_Me_D]

Yeah. I get where he's coming from but this is just switching the narrative and arguing pure hyperbole. It's a dense and bad comparison.

I am not the one who switched the narrative. The gist of this thread is about responsibility. I made it perfectly clear in the thread title, in post #1 and I reiterated it in post #38 . The hyperbole are not bad comparisons. They are meant to show the weaknesses in the contrasting person's direct rebuttal, and they do just that.....

[BreakingKayfabe]

The hyperbole are not bad comparisons.

And I disagree. I think they're terrible. We'll keep it at that.

[Just_Me_D]

And I disagree. I think they're terrible. We'll keep it at that.

(laughing)....No problem...

[anon(5630457)]

Nothing is going to prevent your computer from being prone to hacks bro. I’m sorry, but you’re simply naive to believe so. Updates are common, but they aren’t required. What you bought at the time of purchase is what you got. Nothing more.

And his “false analogies” are spot on. You just don’t agree with them.

I guarantee you that you'd be pretty pissed if you purchased a computer and they never updated the software, correct? People would quit purchasing that particular brand if they knew the software was not being updated.

This whole thing with the excuses has become beyond ridiculous. We're at ludicrous-level now.

[Quis89]

Yeah, it’s like expecting your $350,000 home to automatically come furnished as well as protect you from burglars simply because of its price. It’s like some kids today who want to be adults without the responsibilities that come with being an adult. Know what I mean?

Again with the false analogies.

Maybe it's kind of like buying a security system for that $350k home. Then after a year your alarm company silently pushes out an update that disables the alarm to preserve the functionality of the cameras without your knowledge. Then your home gets robbed and you have no knowledge of this robbery because the alarm never went off. But you've got great video of all your things being removed.

You complain but there is nothing they can do. So you buy a new alarm system since your last one "isn't working". (Which is totally fine because people upgrade alarm systems all the time to get the latest features so it doesn't matter. Apparently the number of people who keep their alarm systems for an extended period of time is so small that we don't care about them. They should have upgraded anyway.)

The company sold you a product...they never promised you anything. Even though it was their silent modification that resulted in your unawareness of what was happening.

One side is basically saying they wouldn't be upset because the alarm company is of no obligation to let you know of changes they make to their product nor should you expect them to. You shouldn't expect them to do anything other than take your money in exchange for their product, in fact. The other side is saying the company should at least make their customers aware of customer impacting changes they make to the products they sell.

It's an ideological argument here. And changing ideologies may be the toughest thing possible. Which is why these arguments go in circles lol.

[X0LARIUM]

Completely and totally disagree with the OP. Say you are driving your car you've been using for the last X years. You recently went to the official service centre for your annual check. They did something funny to it, without your knowledge, and the car doesn't go above 60. You wonder what is wrong. And when you reach home, you see in the news that this is a widespread issue and everyone who has your car's model, is facing the exact same issue.

Then your favorite car company (not any more perhaps) makes a public announcement that it has tinkered with your 4 wheeler. Now, as a company, are they "obliged" to make you happy? HELL YEA! They are the ones who began this in the first place, so they better fix it.

Forget everything else. If they have pushed an update that kills the OS, they have NO right to make money over "fixing" that issue. Why? Because it was deliberate and intentional on their part. Simple.

Edit1: Oh and on the other hand, I like what they did with my iPad. I really do. They stopped the upgrade beyond iOS 9.XX. Fair enough. My iPad isn't worth going to 10/111, I get it. I am in fact thankful it came all the way till 9. That's 3 versions on from where I had bought it.

[X0LARIUM]

So if someone entered an Apple Store saying that their phone isn’t as fast as it used to be, especially after it updated to iOS 11, and then started looking around at the newer model iPhone and telling the genius that he wanted his current iPhone to be as fast as the newer ones. If the genius tells the customer that although he could fix the problem with the old phone, it will never be as fast as the newer phone, is it a lie? In addition, if the customer opts to buy the new phone, even after the genius stated that he could fix the problem with the old one, where’s the problem?

Granted, I can’t prove that my example actually occurred, but you also can’t prove that it didn’t.

Let's just take one step back. Just one. Why is it slow? Because Apple wanted it to. End of argument.

[Garz]

What’s Apple responsibilities to customers? To be truthful to them. Did they have reason to throttle the phones due to shutdowns? Yes. But not with doing it and not saying so. Apple could have avoided this mess.

[Just_Me_D]

Let's just take one step back. Just one. Why is it slow? Because Apple wanted it to. End of argument.

No. That may be the end of your argument, but not mine. People seem to always want the newest of the new and expect it to run on an old device as if it were new. At some point in time, the device is outdated or will not be able to run the newer software appropriately. It's like trying to get an old black and white model Zenith TV to display your favorite movie in 4K....Not gonna happen! When people by a current year iPhone, they are buying the best iPhone available until the newest model is introduced. At that point, it is no longer the best iPhone model because a newer one has supplanted it.

Up until I was 40 years old, I could run 3 miles in 17 minutes and a few seconds. Today, it'll take me 17 minutes just to walk down the hallway...(laughing)...Of course, I'm exaggerating, but you get the gist.

[X0LARIUM]

No. That may be the end of your argument, but not mine. People seem to always want the newest of the new and expect it to run on an old device as if it were new. At some point in time, the device is outdated or will not be able to run the newer software appropriately. It's like trying to get an old black and white model Zenith TV to display your favorite movie in 4K....Not gonna happen! When people by a current year iPhone, they are buying the best iPhone available until the newest model is introduced. At that point, it is no longer the best iPhone model because a newer one has supplanted it.

Up until I was 40 years old, I could run 3 miles in 17 minutes and a few seconds. Today, it'll take me 17 minutes just to walk down the hallway...(laughing)...Of course, I'm exaggerating, but you get the gist.

Well, again, I turn the board to Apple. Who pushed the update? Apple. Who asks people to "get on the latest version of iOS". Again Apple. Who stops supporting older versions of the apps. Apple again. So I really don't think the people are left with a lot of choice. Believe me, if I know Apple is going to screw my device with the next update, I would never update my device. No one likes a shiny new sports car without an engine.

So yea. I really don't think Apple can escape the "responsibility" here by throwing their hands in the air and saying "well...your device...go figure." I am sorry. It's morally and ethically not right.

[Just_Me_D]

Well, again, I turn the board to Apple. Who pushed the update? Apple. Who asks people to "get on the latest version of iOS". Again Apple. Who stops supporting older versions of the apps. Apple again. So I really don't think the people are left with a lot of choice. Believe me, if I know Apple is going to screw my device with the next update, I would never update my device. No one likes a shiny new sports car without an engine.

So yea. I really don't think Apple can escape the "responsibility" here by throwing their hands in the air and saying "well...your device...go figure." I am sorry. It's morally and ethically not right.

I think my point has been lost. Apple will do what any other big company would do to appease their consumers. That’s a fact that I think we all agree on.

My point is that they are not “obligated” to do it. The expectations of a company is not the same as an obligation from that company. People will ask, “what about Apple’s responsibility?” as if it stretches far beyond the purchase agreement between it and the buyers when, in fact, it does not.

[tadpoles]

Disclaimer:. I have not read every word of every post in this thread so if I missed something please be kind.


This is a tricky one. So let's ask the question with a little different flavor. If Apple had put out a bold disclaimer as part of the update that read something like:.



Attention: Performance may be greatly adversely affected by this update due to XY and Z but our intention is to prolong the life of your device. Owner beware.



Had that been published some folks wouldn't have updated and we'd not be discussing this.

I disagree with the perspective that says Apple did not publish such a noticable statement to customers and is not OBLIGATED for dealing with the aftermath of gimping customer'sdevices. I feel they are obligated to appease customers because of their lack of transparency. I don't feel lucky because they are deciding to be nice. Again, I feel they were responsible. Obligated. Apple chose to adversely affect the performance of devices, they didn't have to. They also chose to put their notification of the affects of this update in a place that, let's be honest, they knew most people don't look. I'll leave that at that.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about whether they're responsible or obligated to make things right or whether we're just lucky because they decided to be nice.


Now...back to our regularly scheduled programming....