Apple is seemingly getting sued for just under 1 trillion dollars over a software “feature” that intentionally slows down iPhones in certain conditions. It’s currently one of at least seven other class-action lawsuits being filed against the company. Reportedly, all of these seven other suits also revolve around the same problem.
The Staggering $1 Trillion Claim
Violetta Mailyan is filing the lawsuit in California, and one line states:
“each member of the Class had to buy a newer iPhone model because the performance of their older iPhone model had slowed down as a result of Defendant’s purposeful conduct.”
The lawsuits started coming in a few days ago. At the time, Apple released information about a feature in its iOS software. One that slows down a user’s iPhones when their batteries are less than ideal.
According to the company, when lithium batteries age, they lose their ability to provide the necessary power needed by the devices. Apparently, this can result in stutters and shutdowns as the phone tries to execute at full power. However, in such cases, the battery can’t keep up.
As such, Apple decided to implement a particular code in the iPhone’s operating system. This will throttle the device’s speed in cases where the battery has limited it.
While companies have been long-suspected of slowing down older phones, there’s not been anything officially released on the practice. At least not until now.
For iPhones specifically, the information was brought to light after several independent bloggers ran tests on their phones. One user, in particular, found that if he had the battery replaced on his device, this would return to full performance.
It might seem like $1 trillion is an outlandish amount to get sued over. However, users point out that the light should be on Apple. They consider that the company should be more forthcoming with its software implementations.
This is considered especially important in cases when those implementations could push users into purchasing a brand new phone even if a simple battery replacement would have sufficed.
Image Source: Wikimedia