Apple has planned obsolescence? I’m amazed that I got a software update for my iPhone 6S last year. And it worked pretty well. So well that when I upgraded and the trade in value was $100, rather than the $200 I had expected, it gave me pause and I decided the device was still worth $100 to me, and kept it. My daughter sometimes watches Cocomelon or does Khan Academy Kids with it, on the original battery.
What exactly is Italy expecting from Apple here? The device doesn’t stop working, or anything like that.
I have an original iPad, still works fine. Or rather, it would, were all the apps for the latest compatible iOS version still available.
But they're not, and there's no way (sort of jailbreak) to install them otherwise.
So hardware is fully functional (for the most part), but can only be used as a slow browser. The fault here is in (a) mandating use of a single store, combined with (b) not supporting the store longer.
I understand nobody wants to maintain services for 9yo hardware, but since they wanted to be a gatekeeper, I place the blame squarely on them.
It wasn't the case on the original iPad (only started with the iPad 2), but iOS will show you the last version compatible for this iOS (even if this is not the most recent version available on the App Store).
Assuming of course that all the APIs being used by this app are still functional.
What a disingenuous argument. It doesn’t matter when the phone was first introduced, that’s not what makes it “old.” Apple sold (as a first party) the 6S through at least 2018. If you bought it then, it would certainly not be a thing worth celebrating that last year (less than two years later) the phone was still supported.
The 6s is still getting updates. The user meant they got an ios 14 upgrade. But it continues to get security updates now. Rumour is it will get support dropped in september for ios 15, though Apple has been issuing security updates for older devices so remains to be seen.
Ongoing support has to be seem in the context of the market. Every phone manufacturer bases support on both original sale date and ongoing sale date. So you can’t just ignore original sale date when considering longevity.
Chromebooks are really bad for that too. Google mandates a certain support time period, but it begins when the device first goes on sale. Really obnoxious to find that out and have to sort out chromebooks by release date
Claiming an argument is disingenuous because you don't like it is an extremely cheap retort. They clearly were sincere in their statement, and given that the 6S was released in 2015, everyone who bought one at a later date knew that it was an older device, and it's still supported and will continue to be supported.
Another way to put it is that no one does better than Apple at keeping their devices useful and valuable (easily demonstrated in resale values). Maybe Apple could do even better, but it's in a market where it is far and away the standout.
As an aside, people say "well look I can put some completely unsupported, random ROM on my old device!" is not a counterpoint. iPhones and iPads continue on as our kid's devices, resolve for a handsome resale price, etc. Competitor devices collect dust in a drawer. This is empirical truth.
Microsoft provided security patches for Windows XP for 14 years. The way Apple and Google retool their mobile OSes every couple years seems deliberately designed to create a technical justification for ending support. And Apple pioneered this business model with the original iPhone.
It will be interesting to see how Windows 10 shapes up. It seems like a really well-thought-out OS so software patches never have to be stopped. Of course if Microsoft chases Apple to ARM we could see a repeat of when Apple obsoleted all old Macs by ending support for PPC.
> Microsoft provided security patches for Windows XP for 14 years.
Yes, business vs. consumer. Microsoft had, I imagine, powerful clients that were still on Windows XP.
The consumer space is a much more dynamic space. As it would happen, it has been about 15 years since the first iPhone. I would be surprised if there were someone still wanting to use that device. (I mean, un-ironically.)
Also too, the smart phone was a new market and the "Cold War" between Android and Apple meant change was harried (is that the proper use of that word?). "Move fast and break things" was certainly evident on both sides.
Now though, as the market has matured, I would hope all players slow down a bit and look to extend the lifetime of their hardware/software.
I think they could’ve messaged better around that, but some people seem to have the fairly ridiculous notion that Apple purposefully made the batteries degrade. Which is a bit like suing Nike for the rubber on your shoes wearing down.
That being said, Italian courts are a bit notorious for doing insane things. Italy ended up jailing some seismologists for failing to predict a deadly earthquake, which is both ridiculous and obviously has done nothing to make Italians safer.
Yeah, it is bad, but let me be the devil's advocate: Italy's justice has three levels, and it's very easy to be judged guilty during the first step, the judge needs only a small evidence and he/she defers to the next level. Frankly, I don't feel the Italy's justice system to be worse than other countries, it's pretty fair IMHO (disclosure: I'm Italian but in no way related to Italian justice)
The phrase American defense lawyers use is “the process is the punishment.” Even if a higher tier eventually exonerates the wrongly accused, they’ve already been dragged through years of stress, had their reputation ruined, and probably have gone bankrupt.
Unfortunately the higher levels allow those currently invested in the system as is to say “see, they were exonerated” and ignore the massive amount of purposeful damage done in the process.
Interesting. Or if car manufacturers, detecting thin walls on your tires or mileage put on your tires, throttled the top speed of the car to avoid deadly blowouts at highway speeds.
Feature or nuisance? I'm on the fence. Maybe a warning light when you pass some critical speed.
> [...] for failing to predict a deadly earthquake
That's not what they were accused for. After a earthquake swarm that scared the people, the head of the national service for civil protection asked them to reassure the population, and they obeyed, publishing a statement that said that everything was OK and there was nothing to worry about.
After the definitive absolution, some of them kept saying that they were tried for being scientists, but the truth is that they were tried for NOT being scientists: saying what politicians ask you to say is very far from being a scientist.
> I think they could’ve messaged better around that
It wasn't bad messaging, it was no messaging. That's why they got slapped with a fine. People saw their phones were slowing down, assumed the phones were just old and bought new ones. If they knew they just needed a battery change, many wouldn't have bought a new phone. Don't tell me that wasn't deliberate.
Apple added that very quickly after the scandal came to light. A clear sign that they knew it was wrong to artificially slow down customers' phones without notifying them.
I worked in obsolescence in a previous job - it was a small department, with a very specialized knowledgebase, and tricky purpose.
People don't realize that it is a very difficult balancing act to keep electronics working over the long term due to the ever advancing pace of technology (hardware and software), complexity of manufacturing, materials availability, customer demand, etc.
One part of that could include rapid design refreshes planned on a schedule to avoid obsolescence issues, for example. When viewed a certain way, pumping out new products rapidly and not supporting old products for long periods of time could be perceived as planned obsolescence, but is possibly a reaction to customer demands..
I am not defending planned obsolescence here (perhaps pointing out a different concept entirely given its current negative definition), but there is a point of view that planning for and addressing obsolescence in a controlled and transparent manner, proactively, may actually be a good thing, not a bad thing. But it could be quite hard to see that perspective as a consumer.
Also, certainly, when done behind the scenes for reasons that only serve the best interests of a private organization and not the customer and/or environment - that is an entirely different story and not acceptable.
In a subset of electronics that had not yet “plateaued” until recently like smartphones, managing obsolescence has to be even more tricky.
In terms of sheer power, the difference between even and iPhone 4 or 5 and 11 or 12 is staggering and so huge that the speed difference can be felt even with pedestrian tasks. Earlier models like the original/3G/3GS are so much slower they’re practically on a different plane of existence.
It’s almost like the difference between an early-90s 68k Mac and and early 2000s PowerMac G3/G4 towers. The gulf between the two was so wide that continuing to support even the most powerful 68k models just wasn’t practical.
Ridiculous to target Apple here. They have been way better than any other mobile phone manufacturer about this. How many Android devices released over 5 years ago still have access to the latest OS version and security updates?
They have a plan, but it's a less evil plan than other mfrs. My Pixel 2 XL, which is FINE, is now out of software support. I bought it in August 2018, when it was the latest Pixel. Meanwhile my wife's 6S, from Sept 2015, is still supported. Go sue Google!
Google, though, specifically introduced Project Treble for the exact purpose of making the hardware-dependent portions of Android separate from the rest of it. It worked so well that there are now custom ROMs in the form of one system image that runs on a wide variety of devices using different SoCs. Yet Google themselves act as if there are insurmountable difficulties in supporting old devices. No there are not. They act as if they still need Qualcomm to keep older devices up to date, but they don't.
If folks over at xda-developers could do it in their free time, Google could too — if they wanted.
But besides, Android is feature-complete. It's done as a product. There's nothing more to be added. You really only need security updates.
It's not guaranteed to get software updates, but Pixel 2 is able to run Android 11, and so I believe it will continue to get security updates so long as Android 11 receives them. But it won't get access to Android 12 whenever that comes out and I agree overall that the support period for smartphone software is way too short nowadays.
I finally switched to iPhone after my perfectly functional Pixel XL was effectively made useless by Google discontinuing security updates. Perhaps I could have flashed a custom ROM on the Pixel, but I want a device that works with minimal fuss (I'd rather tinker on other things).
And google is praised for having 3 years of support when most other Android phones have 2 or less.
I get not giving full OS updates for longer, but it seem like security updates for an expensive, important device that most people rely heavily on should be for 10 years at least.
They also actively build their phones to be purposefully hard to repair and have stood against many of the "right to repair" laws that have been introduced that would extend the life of their phones.
This behavior would seem to contradict your statement.
I wonder why all of these associations go against apple, when most android phones stop getting updates much earlier than any iPhone or other Apple device.
At least in the US, Apple has biggest market share by vendor at almost 50%. Samsung is a somewhat distant 2nd [0]. I would assume Italy is similar. You go against the biggest company to have the biggest impact, get the biggest settlement and set the biggest precedent.
Going against Apple on this case also makes it more likely that they’ll lose, and make the opposite precedent. For all of its faults, Apple is very good at supporting old phones; they’re probably the hardest manufacturer to sue on this dimension.
I can’t seem to get numbers for Italy (without a pay wall), but I’d expect Huawei and Samsung to be stronger than in the EU overall because of their phones’ lower average price.
I have not updated my phone in two years, because I know the update I am going to get will disable call recording functionality. Phone works fine except that I cannot disable the notification about the update that pops up randomly in hope that I'll click to accept by mistake.
Also maybe that's why my phone works well as there are no updates that would slow things down.
My bet would be that it's because the people who are in powerful positions own iPhones. You are a lot more likely to go after someone you have negative experiences with. When your original $800 iPad gets soft bricked by the appstore and your $3000 touch bar Macbook starts falling apart you aren't going to sue Samsung too, just because they have similar issues.
Then again it may just be because they are Apple, the company with enough cash to start-up a small country.
They are claiming damages, probably the bounty is much higher since a typical Android phone costs 200€ vs Apple's 1200€. Plus a lot of consumer protection legislation and precedents signal that high end products have to last longer.
Since this "article" is a mere six sentences long, it's hard to determine what the specific practices are which "tricked" consumers. I recently recycled my 6 Plus in Oct for the new SE, and still had the original battery for all those years. Seems very strange they included the 6S on their list, since at least it's possible to install the latest iOS on it. With my 6 Plus I was stuck on iOS 12.
Weird, I would think they would go after them for the laptops. Then again, the iPhones seem okay except for their weird "security" stuff where if you swap a screen it bricks the phone after an update a few months later.
We really need to focus more on the software when talking planned obsolescence of mobile devices. There's phones out there that won't get any security fixes even when they're new, making them obsolete instantly. Why do people keep ignoring that?
What exactly is Italy expecting from Apple here? The device doesn’t stop working, or anything like that.