Apple Now Facing Worldwide Legal Action Over “Dodgy” Nobbling Of iPhones
iPhone owners in Australia are waiting till their lawyers get back from their holiday break to sue the big US phone Company for what they claim are questionable practises several have told SmartHouse.
In the US Apple iPhone owners are heading to lawyers in droves after Apple admitted it deliberately slows down old iPhone models, some say for commercial gain in an effort to get consumers to upgrade to a new model.
In what appears to be a classic Apple PR Spin the multibillion dollar Company claims that they did it to extend the battery life of “older iPhone models” despite some of those devices being less than 12 months old.
The firm is now facing eight lawsuits filed in various federal courts in the USA following the pre-Christmas announcement.
The Company that is struggling to keep up with innovation from companies such as Samsung and their Galaxy Note 8 is also facing a massive fall in sales as consumers dump their iPhones for Android models.
New research shows that iPhone users are opting to switch to rival Samsung as they are looking for a device with consistent performance.
They are also searching for future stability on their expensive handsets as Apple starts to lose their trust.
What Apple has admitted is that they are underclocking older iPhones deliberately in order to avoid the devices from shutting down because of ageing batteries.
iPhone 7 owners have not bought the Apple spin and are now heading to the courts and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in an effort to have a go at Apple.
Reports gathered from social media discussions confirm that many iPhone users are deciding to switch to rival Samsung as users are looking for a device that would work for a longer term without any performance hiccups.
Softpedia also reported that several claim Samsung’s ecosystems to be a lot more appealing after Apple’s recent announcement.
This is not the first time Apple has been accused of deliberately throttling the performance of its older phones.
Explanations for the slowness range from Apple’s iOS causing problems on older devices to the firm deliberately slowing down old phones to make people buy the new handsets.
This latter explanation is known as planned, or built-in, obsolescence.
This is the idea that manufacturer’s deliberately make their products in such a way that they become out-of-date sooner.
By doing this, the companies can encourage customers to buy the latest model of a certain product.
This also stimulates demand for products because people return again and again.
Some customers are unhappy the company has been less than transparent about the performance throttling feature, which they see as a ploy to drive sales of new handsets.
All the lawsuits – filed in U.S. District Courts in California, New York and Illinois – seek class-action to represent potentially millions of iPhone owners nationwide.
A similar case was lodged in an Israeli court on Monday, the newspaper Haaretz reported.
One of the lawsuits, filed Thursday in San Francisco, said that ‘the batteries’ inability to handle the demand created by processor speeds’ without the software patch was a defect.
‘Rather than curing the battery defect by providing a free battery replacement for all affected iPhones, Apple sought to mask the battery defect,’ according to the complaint.
The plaintiff in that case is represented by attorney Jeffrey Fazio, who represented plaintiffs in a $53-million settlement with Apple in 2013 over its handling of iPhone warranty claims.
The problem now seen is that users over the last year could have blamed an aging computer processor for app crashes and sluggish performance – and chose to buy a new phone – when the true cause may have been a weak battery that could have been replaced for a fraction of the cost, some of the lawsuits state.
‘If it turns out that consumers would have replaced their battery instead of buying new iPhones had they known the true nature of Apple’s upgrades, you might start to have a better case for some sort of misrepresentation or fraud,’ said Rory Van Loo, a Boston University professor specializing in consumer technology law.