Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[Angie Nutt]

Hi

My husband and I have the 6s; he says he has noticed the slowdown, I haven’t. 
Mine is constantly used and the battery rarely goes flat; his is much less used 
and is often allowed to run down; I think mine is better looked after in that 
regard. 

I would certainly prefer some slowing than sudden shutdowns and I certainly 
wouldn’t want overheating.

All he best
Angie
> On 30 Dec 2017, at 16:30, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> T?he "dam slo down" is a matter of perception.  I'm still running a 6S?, so 
> is my wife and my daughter is running a 6.  I'd expect slowdowns on each of 
> those devices by now, especially my daughter's 6.  If the slowdown's are 
> happening, they're definitely not enough to decide that we need new iPhones.  
> I could use that as an excuse though and maybe my wife would cave and let me 
> buy one, but I doubt it.  Whether Apple is the best corporation around, or 
> not is actually immaterial.  They make a good product, and so does Samsung.  
> Samsung made a mistake last year with their batteries, maybe Apple was trying 
> to make sure that they didn't have those sorts of issues as well.  In either 
> case, Samsung is still a reputable corporation that makes good quality 
> product, and so is Apple.  We armchair executives may have multitudes of 
> opinions, but we're also not the ones answering to shareholders, the same 
> shareholders that encouraged Apple to quit putting so many costly resources 
> into accessibility, as it is not something with an excellent return.
> 
> Later...
> 
> 
> Tim Kilburn
> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
> 
> On Dec 30, 2017, at 00:21, lenron brown  wrote:
> 
> Well consumers probably thought they needed a new device in certain
> cases because of the damn slow down, When really all they needed was a
> new battery. This article got one thing right though. It will just
> blow over and most will act like this company is still the best at
> everything. The fact that they are selling the batteries for 30 bucks
> is mind blowing, because my thoughts are still why wasn't they doing
> this in the first place.
> 
> On 12/29/17, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
>> hi,
>> 
>> Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  First, no
>> one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a choice those
>> consumers made.  Second, the mention of all the customers that faithfully go
>> out and purchase the newest model would do so whether their phone was
>> slowing down or not, they just like to have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry
>> lawyers" though is spot on, along with some over zealous consumers.
>> 
>> Later...
>> 
>> Tim Kilburn
>> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>> 
>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor  wrote:
>> 
>> Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
>> By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago
>> In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped
>> calls
>> on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
>> weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
>> The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far enough.
>> We didn't think that it did.
>> First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
>> performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery
>> life.
>> It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.
>> Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits were
>> churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in compensation
>> on
>> behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
>> healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software
>> update.
>> They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
>> feature.
>> Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
>> world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission, we
>> tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
>> Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple came
>> clean and released it's own take.
>> One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We suggested
>> Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any consumer
>> who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not a
>> free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount: $29.99,
>> $50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January
>> and
>> running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
>> Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid CEO
>> Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple generated $10
>> billion in profit for just the most recent quarter.
>> Yet it refuses to give away free batteries to inconvenienced Apple
>> customers
>> who have been suffering from slow 

RE: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[Simon Fogarty]

Yeah that's what I did,

 But one small difference,

I'm single, not married or attached anymore,

 Lifes so easy until you need someone to pick you up from the pub cause you 
don't know the way home!

-Original Message-
From: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com [mailto:macvisionaries@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of lenron brown
Sent: Sunday, 31 December 2017 4:53 PM
To: macvisionaries@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

Ha ha if you want that new phone just get it if you can afford. Sell the old to 
recoup some of the cost.

On 12/30/17, Simon Fogarty <si...@blinky-net.com> wrote:
> but tim aren’t you the man of the family? Shouldn’t you be able to do 
> what you wish to?
>
> Or is that only if your wife gives ou permission to do so?!
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 31/12/2017, at 5:30 AM, Tim Kilburn <kilbu...@me.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> T?he "dam slo down" is a matter of perception.  I'm still running a 
>> 6S?, so is my wife and my daughter is running a 6.  I'd expect 
>> slowdowns on each of those devices by now, especially my daughter's 
>> 6.  If the slowdown's are happening, they're definitely not enough to 
>> decide that we need new iPhones.  I could use that as an excuse 
>> though and maybe my wife would cave and let me buy one, but I doubt 
>> it.  Whether Apple is the best corporation around, or not is actually 
>> immaterial.  They make a good product, and so does Samsung.  Samsung 
>> made a mistake last year with their batteries, maybe Apple was trying 
>> to make sure that they didn't have those sorts of issues as well.  In 
>> either case, Samsung is still a reputable corporation that makes good 
>> quality product, and so is Apple.  We armchair executives may have 
>> multitudes of opinions, but we're also not the ones answering to 
>> shareholders, the same shareholders that encouraged Apple to quit 
>> putting so many costly resources into accessibility, as it is not something 
>> with an excellent return.
>>
>> Later...
>>
>>
>> Tim Kilburn
>> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2017, at 00:21, lenron brown <lenro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well consumers probably thought they needed a new device in certain 
>> cases because of the damn slow down, When really all they needed was 
>> a new battery. This article got one thing right though. It will just 
>> blow over and most will act like this company is still the best at 
>> everything. The fact that they are selling the batteries for 30 bucks 
>> is mind blowing, because my thoughts are still why wasn't they doing 
>> this in the first place.
>>
>>> On 12/29/17, Tim Kilburn <kilbu...@me.com> wrote:
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  
>>> First, no one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a 
>>> choice those consumers made.  Second, the mention of all the 
>>> customers that faithfully go out and purchase the newest model would 
>>> do so whether their phone was slowing down or not, they just like to 
>>> have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry lawyers" though is spot on, along 
>>> with some over zealous consumers.
>>>
>>> Later...
>>>
>>> Tim Kilburn
>>> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor <mk...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough By Jefferson Graham | USA 
>>> TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago In the grand tradition of past Apple 
>>> fiascos like Antennagate (dropped calls on the then-new iPhone 4) 
>>> and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that weren't accurate), the 
>>> tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
>>> The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far 
>>> enough.
>>> We didn't think that it did.
>>> First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down 
>>> the performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining 
>>> battery life.
>>> It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.
>>> Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer 
>>> lawsuits were churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 
>>> million in compensation on behalf of all the consumers who felt 
>>> forced to upgrade their otherwise healthy older phones after they 
>>> were slowed down by Apple's software update.
>>> They were not given the choice 

Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[lenron brown]

Ha ha if you want that new phone just get it if you can afford. Sell
the old to recoup some of the cost.

On 12/30/17, Simon Fogarty  wrote:
> but tim aren’t you the man of the family? Shouldn’t you be able to do what
> you wish to?
>
> Or is that only if your wife gives ou permission to do so?!
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On 31/12/2017, at 5:30 AM, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> T?he "dam slo down" is a matter of perception.  I'm still running a 6S?,
>> so is my wife and my daughter is running a 6.  I'd expect slowdowns on
>> each of those devices by now, especially my daughter's 6.  If the
>> slowdown's are happening, they're definitely not enough to decide that we
>> need new iPhones.  I could use that as an excuse though and maybe my wife
>> would cave and let me buy one, but I doubt it.  Whether Apple is the best
>> corporation around, or not is actually immaterial.  They make a good
>> product, and so does Samsung.  Samsung made a mistake last year with their
>> batteries, maybe Apple was trying to make sure that they didn't have those
>> sorts of issues as well.  In either case, Samsung is still a reputable
>> corporation that makes good quality product, and so is Apple.  We armchair
>> executives may have multitudes of opinions, but we're also not the ones
>> answering to shareholders, the same shareholders that encouraged Apple to
>> quit putting so many costly resources into accessibility, as it is not
>> something with an excellent return.
>>
>> Later...
>>
>>
>> Tim Kilburn
>> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>>
>> On Dec 30, 2017, at 00:21, lenron brown  wrote:
>>
>> Well consumers probably thought they needed a new device in certain
>> cases because of the damn slow down, When really all they needed was a
>> new battery. This article got one thing right though. It will just
>> blow over and most will act like this company is still the best at
>> everything. The fact that they are selling the batteries for 30 bucks
>> is mind blowing, because my thoughts are still why wasn't they doing
>> this in the first place.
>>
>>> On 12/29/17, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  First,
>>> no
>>> one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a choice those
>>> consumers made.  Second, the mention of all the customers that faithfully
>>> go
>>> out and purchase the newest model would do so whether their phone was
>>> slowing down or not, they just like to have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry
>>> lawyers" though is spot on, along with some over zealous consumers.
>>>
>>> Later...
>>>
>>> Tim Kilburn
>>> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>>>
>>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor  wrote:
>>>
>>> Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
>>> By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago
>>> In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped
>>> calls
>>> on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
>>> weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this
>>> week.
>>> The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far
>>> enough.
>>> We didn't think that it did.
>>> First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
>>> performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery
>>> life.
>>> It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.
>>> Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits
>>> were
>>> churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in
>>> compensation
>>> on
>>> behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
>>> healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software
>>> update.
>>> They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
>>> feature.
>>> Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
>>> world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission,
>>> we
>>> tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
>>> Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple
>>> came
>>> clean and released it's own take.
>>> One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We
>>> suggested
>>> Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any
>>> consumer
>>> who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not
>>> a
>>> free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount:
>>> $29.99,
>>> $50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January
>>> and
>>> running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
>>> Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid
>>> CEO
>>> Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple generated $10
>>> billion in profit for just the most recent quarter.
>>> Yet it refuses to give 

Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[Simon Fogarty]

but tim aren’t you the man of the family? Shouldn’t you be able to do what you 
wish to?

Or is that only if your wife gives ou permission to do so?!



Sent from my iPhone

> On 31/12/2017, at 5:30 AM, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> T?he "dam slo down" is a matter of perception.  I'm still running a 6S?, so 
> is my wife and my daughter is running a 6.  I'd expect slowdowns on each of 
> those devices by now, especially my daughter's 6.  If the slowdown's are 
> happening, they're definitely not enough to decide that we need new iPhones.  
> I could use that as an excuse though and maybe my wife would cave and let me 
> buy one, but I doubt it.  Whether Apple is the best corporation around, or 
> not is actually immaterial.  They make a good product, and so does Samsung.  
> Samsung made a mistake last year with their batteries, maybe Apple was trying 
> to make sure that they didn't have those sorts of issues as well.  In either 
> case, Samsung is still a reputable corporation that makes good quality 
> product, and so is Apple.  We armchair executives may have multitudes of 
> opinions, but we're also not the ones answering to shareholders, the same 
> shareholders that encouraged Apple to quit putting so many costly resources 
> into accessibility, as it is not something with an excellent return.
> 
> Later...
> 
> 
> Tim Kilburn
> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
> 
> On Dec 30, 2017, at 00:21, lenron brown  wrote:
> 
> Well consumers probably thought they needed a new device in certain
> cases because of the damn slow down, When really all they needed was a
> new battery. This article got one thing right though. It will just
> blow over and most will act like this company is still the best at
> everything. The fact that they are selling the batteries for 30 bucks
> is mind blowing, because my thoughts are still why wasn't they doing
> this in the first place.
> 
>> On 12/29/17, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
>> hi,
>> 
>> Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  First, no
>> one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a choice those
>> consumers made.  Second, the mention of all the customers that faithfully go
>> out and purchase the newest model would do so whether their phone was
>> slowing down or not, they just like to have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry
>> lawyers" though is spot on, along with some over zealous consumers.
>> 
>> Later...
>> 
>> Tim Kilburn
>> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>> 
>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor  wrote:
>> 
>> Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
>> By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago
>> In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped
>> calls
>> on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
>> weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
>> The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far enough.
>> We didn't think that it did.
>> First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
>> performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery
>> life.
>> It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.
>> Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits were
>> churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in compensation
>> on
>> behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
>> healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software
>> update.
>> They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
>> feature.
>> Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
>> world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission, we
>> tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
>> Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple came
>> clean and released it's own take.
>> One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We suggested
>> Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any consumer
>> who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not a
>> free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount: $29.99,
>> $50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January
>> and
>> running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
>> Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid CEO
>> Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple generated $10
>> billion in profit for just the most recent quarter.
>> Yet it refuses to give away free batteries to inconvenienced Apple
>> customers
>> who have been suffering from slow downs of their phones that they bought
>> from Apple in good faith.
>> Analyst Patrick Moorhead of Moor Insights says Apple's replacement battery
>> costs less than $10. He estimates that only around 

Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[Simon Fogarty]

Sent from my iPhone

> On 31/12/2017, at 5:37 AM, E.T.  wrote:
> 
>   Some see it as a half empty glass but you and I see it as a half full 
> glass. I got my iPhone 5 almost 5 years ago and its never given me any 
> trouble.
> 
> From E.T.'s Keyboard. . .
> "God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world,
> all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off
> and say God did it." --Carl Sagan (1934-1996), Contact
> E-mail: ancient.ali...@icloud.com
> 
>> On 12/30/2017 8:30 AM, Tim Kilburn wrote:
>> Hi,
>> T?he "dam slo down" is a matter of perception.  I'm still running a 6S?, so 
>> is my wife and my daughter is running a 6.  I'd expect slowdowns on each of 
>> those devices by now, especially my daughter's 6.  If the slowdown's are 
>> happening, they're definitely not enough to decide that we need new iPhones. 
>>  I could use that as an excuse though and maybe my wife would cave and let 
>> me buy one, but I doubt it.  Whether Apple is the best corporation around, 
>> or not is actually immaterial.  They make a good product, and so does 
>> Samsung.  Samsung made a mistake last year with their batteries, maybe Apple 
>> was trying to make sure that they didn't have those sorts of issues as well. 
>>  In either case, Samsung is still a reputable corporation that makes good 
>> quality product, and so is Apple.  We armchair executives may have 
>> multitudes of opinions, but we're also not the ones answering to 
>> shareholders, the same shareholders that encouraged Apple to quit putting so 
>> many costly resources into accessibility, as it is not something with an 
>> excellent return.
>> Later...
>> Tim Kilburn
>> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>> On Dec 30, 2017, at 00:21, lenron brown  wrote:
>> Well consumers probably thought they needed a new device in certain
>> cases because of the damn slow down, When really all they needed was a
>> new battery. This article got one thing right though. It will just
>> blow over and most will act like this company is still the best at
>> everything. The fact that they are selling the batteries for 30 bucks
>> is mind blowing, because my thoughts are still why wasn't they doing
>> this in the first place.
>>> On 12/29/17, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> 
>>> Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  First, no
>>> one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a choice those
>>> consumers made.  Second, the mention of all the customers that faithfully go
>>> out and purchase the newest model would do so whether their phone was
>>> slowing down or not, they just like to have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry
>>> lawyers" though is spot on, along with some over zealous consumers.
>>> 
>>> Later...
>>> 
>>> Tim Kilburn
>>> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>>> 
>>> On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
>>> By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago
>>> In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped
>>> calls
>>> on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
>>> weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
>>> The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far enough.
>>> We didn't think that it did.
>>> First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
>>> performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery
>>> life.
>>> It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.
>>> Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits were
>>> churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in compensation
>>> on
>>> behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
>>> healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software
>>> update.
>>> They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
>>> feature.
>>> Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
>>> world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission, we
>>> tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
>>> Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple came
>>> clean and released it's own take.
>>> One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We suggested
>>> Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any consumer
>>> who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not a
>>> free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount: $29.99,
>>> $50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January
>>> and
>>> running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
>>> Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid CEO
>>> Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple 

Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[E.T.]

   Some see it as a half empty glass but you and I see it as a half 
full glass. I got my iPhone 5 almost 5 years ago and its never given me 
any trouble.


From E.T.'s Keyboard. . .
"God for you is where you sweep away all the mysteries of the world,
all the challenges to our intelligence. You simply turn your mind off
and say God did it." --Carl Sagan (1934-1996), Contact
E-mail: ancient.ali...@icloud.com

On 12/30/2017 8:30 AM, Tim Kilburn wrote:

Hi,

T?he "dam slo down" is a matter of perception.  I'm still running a 6S?, so is 
my wife and my daughter is running a 6.  I'd expect slowdowns on each of those devices by 
now, especially my daughter's 6.  If the slowdown's are happening, they're definitely not 
enough to decide that we need new iPhones.  I could use that as an excuse though and 
maybe my wife would cave and let me buy one, but I doubt it.  Whether Apple is the best 
corporation around, or not is actually immaterial.  They make a good product, and so does 
Samsung.  Samsung made a mistake last year with their batteries, maybe Apple was trying 
to make sure that they didn't have those sorts of issues as well.  In either case, 
Samsung is still a reputable corporation that makes good quality product, and so is 
Apple.  We armchair executives may have multitudes of opinions, but we're also not the 
ones answering to shareholders, the same shareholders that encouraged Apple to quit 
putting so many costly resources into accessibility, as it is not something with an 
excellent return.

Later...


Tim Kilburn
Fort McMurray, AB Canada

On Dec 30, 2017, at 00:21, lenron brown  wrote:

Well consumers probably thought they needed a new device in certain
cases because of the damn slow down, When really all they needed was a
new battery. This article got one thing right though. It will just
blow over and most will act like this company is still the best at
everything. The fact that they are selling the batteries for 30 bucks
is mind blowing, because my thoughts are still why wasn't they doing
this in the first place.

On 12/29/17, Tim Kilburn  wrote:

hi,

Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  First, no
one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a choice those
consumers made.  Second, the mention of all the customers that faithfully go
out and purchase the newest model would do so whether their phone was
slowing down or not, they just like to have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry
lawyers" though is spot on, along with some over zealous consumers.

Later...

Tim Kilburn
Fort McMurray, AB Canada

On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor  wrote:

Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago
In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped
calls
on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far enough.
We didn't think that it did.
First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery
life.
It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.
Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits were
churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in compensation
on
behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software
update.
They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
feature.
Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission, we
tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple came
clean and released it's own take.
One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We suggested
Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any consumer
who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not a
free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount: $29.99,
$50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January
and
running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid CEO
Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple generated $10
billion in profit for just the most recent quarter.
Yet it refuses to give away free batteries to inconvenienced Apple
customers
who have been suffering from slow downs of their phones that they bought
from Apple in good faith.
Analyst Patrick Moorhead of Moor Insights says Apple's replacement battery
costs less than $10. He estimates that only around 100,000 consumers will
take 

Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[Tim Kilburn]

Hi,

T?he "dam slo down" is a matter of perception.  I'm still running a 6S?, so is 
my wife and my daughter is running a 6.  I'd expect slowdowns on each of those 
devices by now, especially my daughter's 6.  If the slowdown's are happening, 
they're definitely not enough to decide that we need new iPhones.  I could use 
that as an excuse though and maybe my wife would cave and let me buy one, but I 
doubt it.  Whether Apple is the best corporation around, or not is actually 
immaterial.  They make a good product, and so does Samsung.  Samsung made a 
mistake last year with their batteries, maybe Apple was trying to make sure 
that they didn't have those sorts of issues as well.  In either case, Samsung 
is still a reputable corporation that makes good quality product, and so is 
Apple.  We armchair executives may have multitudes of opinions, but we're also 
not the ones answering to shareholders, the same shareholders that encouraged 
Apple to quit putting so many costly resources into accessibility, as it is not 
something with an excellent return.

Later...


Tim Kilburn
Fort McMurray, AB Canada

On Dec 30, 2017, at 00:21, lenron brown  wrote:

Well consumers probably thought they needed a new device in certain
cases because of the damn slow down, When really all they needed was a
new battery. This article got one thing right though. It will just
blow over and most will act like this company is still the best at
everything. The fact that they are selling the batteries for 30 bucks
is mind blowing, because my thoughts are still why wasn't they doing
this in the first place.

On 12/29/17, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
> hi,
> 
> Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  First, no
> one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a choice those
> consumers made.  Second, the mention of all the customers that faithfully go
> out and purchase the newest model would do so whether their phone was
> slowing down or not, they just like to have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry
> lawyers" though is spot on, along with some over zealous consumers.
> 
> Later...
> 
> Tim Kilburn
> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
> 
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor  wrote:
> 
> Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
> By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago
> In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped
> calls
> on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
> weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
> The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far enough.
> We didn't think that it did.
> First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
> performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery
> life.
> It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.
> Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits were
> churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in compensation
> on
> behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
> healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software
> update.
> They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
> feature.
> Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
> world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission, we
> tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
> Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple came
> clean and released it's own take.
> One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We suggested
> Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any consumer
> who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not a
> free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount: $29.99,
> $50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January
> and
> running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
> Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid CEO
> Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple generated $10
> billion in profit for just the most recent quarter.
> Yet it refuses to give away free batteries to inconvenienced Apple
> customers
> who have been suffering from slow downs of their phones that they bought
> from Apple in good faith.
> Analyst Patrick Moorhead of Moor Insights says Apple's replacement battery
> costs less than $10. He estimates that only around 100,000 consumers will
> take up Apple on its offer. Even if the battery replacement was free, he
> says some 250,000 people would participate, the result of which would be
> "barely a blip to Apple's earnings."
> A free battery would go a long way towards erasing widespread suspicion
> that
> Apple purposely tries to make its older products obsolete in order to coax

Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[lenron brown]

Well consumers probably thought they needed a new device in certain
cases because of the damn slow down, When really all they needed was a
new battery. This article got one thing right though. It will just
blow over and most will act like this company is still the best at
everything. The fact that they are selling the batteries for 30 bucks
is mind blowing, because my thoughts are still why wasn't they doing
this in the first place.

On 12/29/17, Tim Kilburn  wrote:
> hi,
>
> Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  First, no
> one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a choice those
> consumers made.  Second, the mention of all the customers that faithfully go
> out and purchase the newest model would do so whether their phone was
> slowing down or not, they just like to have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry
> lawyers" though is spot on, along with some over zealous consumers.
>
> Later...
>
> Tim Kilburn
> Fort McMurray, AB Canada
>
> On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor  wrote:
>
> Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
> By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago
> In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped
> calls
> on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
> weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
> The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far enough.
> We didn't think that it did.
> First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
> performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery
> life.
> It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.
> Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits were
> churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in compensation
> on
> behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
> healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software
> update.
> They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
> feature.
> Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
> world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission, we
> tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
> Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple came
> clean and released it's own take.
> One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We suggested
> Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any consumer
> who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not a
> free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount: $29.99,
> $50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January
> and
> running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
> Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid CEO
> Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple generated $10
> billion in profit for just the most recent quarter.
> Yet it refuses to give away free batteries to inconvenienced Apple
> customers
> who have been suffering from slow downs of their phones that they bought
> from Apple in good faith.
> Analyst Patrick Moorhead of Moor Insights says Apple's replacement battery
> costs less than $10. He estimates that only around 100,000 consumers will
> take up Apple on its offer. Even if the battery replacement was free, he
> says some 250,000 people would participate, the result of which would be
> "barely a blip to Apple's earnings."
> A free battery would go a long way towards erasing widespread suspicion
> that
> Apple purposely tries to make its older products obsolete in order to coax
> consumers into buying new ones.
> Apple denied this in the open letter.
> "We have never - and would never - do anything to intentionally shorten the
> life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer
> upgrades," the company said.
> But rivals Samsung, LG, Motorola and HTC all say they don't slow down their
> phones to factor in older batteries.
> "Apple's offer of discounted batteries fails to compensate consumers who
> were forced to purchase new iPhones," said James Vlahakis, a Chicago-area
> lawyer who filed the $5 million class-action lawsuit. The $50 discount on
> the price of a new battery "is an insult to loyal customers who have
> consistently and with much fanfare have flocked to Apple stores worldwide
> to
> purchase every version of the iPhone."
> Still, Moorhead believes this latest fiasco will blow over for Apple and
> fans will continue to wait on line breathlessly when next generation of
> iPhones are announced and come to stores, typically in September. I tend to
> agree, but it will be harder to take Apple's statements at face value
> again.
>
> In other tech news this week
> .Amazon Echo Dot. Amazon said this week that it's 

Re: Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[Tim Kilburn]

hi,

Thanks Mar for this.  Interesting take, but flawed in my opinion.  First, no 
one was "forced" to purchase the new phone, that was a choice those consumers 
made.  Second, the mention of all the customers that faithfully go out and 
purchase the newest model would do so whether their phone was slowing down or 
not, they just like to have the newest iPhone.  "Hungry lawyers" though is spot 
on, along with some over zealous consumers.

Later...

Tim Kilburn
Fort McMurray, AB Canada

On Dec 29, 2017, at 19:46, M. Taylor  wrote:

Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago 
In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped calls
on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far enough.
We didn't think that it did.  
First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery life.
It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.  
Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits were
churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in compensation on
behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software update.
They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
feature. 
Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission, we
tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple came
clean and released it's own take. 
One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We suggested
Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any consumer
who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not a
free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount: $29.99,
$50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January and
running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid CEO
Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple generated $10
billion in profit for just the most recent quarter.
Yet it refuses to give away free batteries to inconvenienced Apple customers
who have been suffering from slow downs of their phones that they bought
from Apple in good faith.
Analyst Patrick Moorhead of Moor Insights says Apple's replacement battery
costs less than $10. He estimates that only around 100,000 consumers will
take up Apple on its offer. Even if the battery replacement was free, he
says some 250,000 people would participate, the result of which would be
"barely a blip to Apple's earnings."
A free battery would go a long way towards erasing widespread suspicion that
Apple purposely tries to make its older products obsolete in order to coax
consumers into buying new ones.
Apple denied this in the open letter.
"We have never - and would never - do anything to intentionally shorten the
life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer
upgrades," the company said.
But rivals Samsung, LG, Motorola and HTC all say they don't slow down their
phones to factor in older batteries. 
"Apple's offer of discounted batteries fails to compensate consumers who
were forced to purchase new iPhones," said James Vlahakis, a Chicago-area
lawyer who filed the $5 million class-action lawsuit. The $50 discount on
the price of a new battery "is an insult to loyal customers who have
consistently and with much fanfare have flocked to Apple stores worldwide to
purchase every version of the iPhone."
Still, Moorhead believes this latest fiasco will blow over for Apple and
fans will continue to wait on line breathlessly when next generation of
iPhones are announced and come to stores, typically in September. I tend to
agree, but it will be harder to take Apple's statements at face value again.

In other tech news this week
.Amazon Echo Dot. Amazon said this week that it's Echo Dot speaker was the
best-selling product among the thousands of items it offered on its website
during the holidays. The Dot is the cheapest way to get the Alexa
personalized assistant into the home. It's normally $49, but was discounted
to $29 beginning in November. 
.HQ Trivia. The game app is set to launch on Android Monday. Who wants to
win some quick cash? The ultra-popular mobile game show, open to anyone who
wants to try answering 12 questions for prizes of around $1,500, had said it
would move beyond the Apple IOS base to launch on Android phones as well.
Search for HQ Trivia on the Google Play Store to pre-register 

Why Apple's "Batterygate" apology didn't go far enough

[M. Taylor]

Why Apple's apology didn't go far enough
By Jefferson Graham | USA TODAY Updated 4 minutes ago 
In the grand tradition of past Apple fiascos like Antennagate (dropped calls
on the then-new iPhone 4) and the launch of Apple Maps (directions that
weren't accurate), the tech giant apologized again to consumers this week.
The question is whether the iconic iPhone maker's apology went far enough.
We didn't think that it did.  
First, Apple was forced to admit that it intentionally slowed down the
performance of older phones in order to keep up with declining battery life.
It acted after a 17-year-old user performed a test that proved it.  
Critics howled, the Twitterverse pounced and several consumer lawsuits were
churned out by hungry lawyers. One asked for a $5 million in compensation on
behalf of all the consumers who felt forced to upgrade their otherwise
healthy older phones after they were slowed down by Apple's software update.
They were not given the choice to opt-in for the battery-saving slowdown
feature. 
Analysts had suggested Apple pen an open letter to consumers. While the
world awaited a beefier response from Apple than its initial admission, we
tried to do some of the work for them. We wrote the letter that we hoped
Apple would write, and posted it. A few hours later on Thursday, Apple came
clean and released it's own take. 
One major difference between our proposed apology and Apple's: We suggested
Apple say they were sorry and offer free battery upgrades for any consumer
who wanted one. Apple saw it differently. It offered an apology but not a
free battery. Instead, it is offering a new battery at a discount: $29.99,
$50 less than usual cost. The deal is available starting in late January and
running through the end of 2018 and only on iPhone 6 and 6S.
Remember, this is the world's most profitable company, a firm that paid CEO
Tim Cook $102 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. Apple generated $10
billion in profit for just the most recent quarter.
Yet it refuses to give away free batteries to inconvenienced Apple customers
who have been suffering from slow downs of their phones that they bought
from Apple in good faith.
Analyst Patrick Moorhead of Moor Insights says Apple's replacement battery
costs less than $10. He estimates that only around 100,000 consumers will
take up Apple on its offer. Even if the battery replacement was free, he
says some 250,000 people would participate, the result of which would be
"barely a blip to Apple's earnings."
A free battery would go a long way towards erasing widespread suspicion that
Apple purposely tries to make its older products obsolete in order to coax
consumers into buying new ones.
Apple denied this in the open letter.
"We have never - and would never - do anything to intentionally shorten the
life of any Apple product, or degrade the user experience to drive customer
upgrades," the company said.
But rivals Samsung, LG, Motorola and HTC all say they don't slow down their
phones to factor in older batteries. 
"Apple's offer of discounted batteries fails to compensate consumers who
were forced to purchase new iPhones," said James Vlahakis, a Chicago-area
lawyer who filed the $5 million class-action lawsuit. The $50 discount on
the price of a new battery "is an insult to loyal customers who have
consistently and with much fanfare have flocked to Apple stores worldwide to
purchase every version of the iPhone."
Still, Moorhead believes this latest fiasco will blow over for Apple and
fans will continue to wait on line breathlessly when next generation of
iPhones are announced and come to stores, typically in September. I tend to
agree, but it will be harder to take Apple's statements at face value again.

In other tech news this week
.Amazon Echo Dot. Amazon said this week that it's Echo Dot speaker was the
best-selling product among the thousands of items it offered on its website
during the holidays. The Dot is the cheapest way to get the Alexa
personalized assistant into the home. It's normally $49, but was discounted
to $29 beginning in November. 
.HQ Trivia. The game app is set to launch on Android Monday. Who wants to
win some quick cash? The ultra-popular mobile game show, open to anyone who
wants to try answering 12 questions for prizes of around $1,500, had said it
would move beyond the Apple IOS base to launch on Android phones as well.
Search for HQ Trivia on the Google Play Store to pre-register and get a
notification when the app is live. 
.Tweet archiving. The Library of Congress won't archive everyone's tweets.
All tweet activity has been archived since 2010, but beginning next week,
the Library of Congress says it will "continue to acquire tweets but will do
so on a very selective basis." The library says tweets collected and
archived will be thematic and event-based, including events such as
elections or themes of ongoing national interest, like those involving
public policy issues. 
This past week on the Talking Tech podcast
Seven