Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yes, it's real and it's plain funny that you discredit simple facts in a case as obvious and with as many data points as Apple.

From the 2005 iPods settlement [0], to the 113 Mio USD Batterygate [1], to Flexgate [2] where Apple only escaped settlement due to plausible deniability.

To quote from Batterygate:

> Apple has agreed to pay millions of dollars to 34 states over its controversial previous practice of deliberately slowing down older iPhones to extend their battery life.

> [...]

> Many believed it was an effort to encourage users to buy new iPhones.

I agree on all your "PS" points, where we seem to differ is that reading is a virtue and not knowing something because you haven't heard of it doesn't constitute a conspiracy theory.

0: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ipod-class-action-suit-settled/

1: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/19/tech/apple-battery-settle...

2: https://www.macrumors.com/2021/07/20/flexgate-class-action-l...



These obviously are’t planned obsolescence though.

Flexgate is a manufacturing error, that they handled in a consumer hostile way

Batterygate, was an arguably misguided way to support outdated models - prioritising one goal (battery life) over another (speed)

The iPod thing I’ll admit I know nothing about.

It sounds like, for you, planned obsolescence is defined as any instance where a product isn’t manufactured perfectly or degardes over time, regardless of whether it was planned. For me, planned obsolescence should contain at least a hint of planning.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: