Photo Credit: https://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2017/09/apple-iphone-x-review-hands-on-11.jpg
Tech mogul Apple released a statement on December 28 apologizing for deliberately slowing down
the processors of its older iPhone models (including the 6, 7, and SE) via iOS updates. Its claim for
doing so is to protect against random system shut-downs that could happen as a result of their
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries, whose ability to hold a charge diminishes over time. As a form of
reparation, the company has decreased the price for a battery replacement from $79 to $29.
However, this apology isn’t sitting too well with many, with people such as U.S. Senator John Thune
(R-SD), chair of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, asking Apple CEO Tim
Cook for more information about the nature of lithium batteries and putting the company’s
transparency into question. It is also in hot water with multiple lawsuits, especially from a French
criminal probe issued by the Halte à l’Obsolescence Programmée (HOP) consumer group, a country
in which planned/intentional obsolescence of technology is illegal under the law. If found guilty,
those involved can face a maximum 2 year prison sentence, a 300,000 euro fine, and may lose 5%
of the company’s annual turnover.
Questions:
- Modern Apple products have been extremely prevalent within the last 10 years or so, so what do you think prompted Apple to give this information at this point in time? Why not any earlier, or why not later?
- Since the company cites the deteriorating quality of the lithium-ion batteries as reason for the system slow-down, do you think the company should invest in crafting phones with different rechargeable batteries?
- Do you think all Apple users should be compensated for this omission of the truth, and if so, by what means?
- Should programmed obsolescence be illegal in the United States?
5 comments:
To touch on the battery replacement going from $79 to $29, Apple said the batteries were going to be in stores in January, however, they are not and the ‘Geniuses’ have no idea when or if they are going to get more. Based off my personal experience, I believe all Apple cares about is selling phones, and not continuing to make old ones work. With that said, Apple only gave this information to make an excuse. With the ios updates, they were intentionally slowing the phones down and making the batteries not last long in order to force people to buy new phones or pay $80 to replace the battery. If Apple was to wait any longer they would continue to be under fire for intentionally making old phones not work, without standing up for themselves. It is good that they reduced the price of batteries, but they do not seem to be following through or communicating with their employees in the the stores. I do think that Apple should try to implement new rechargeable batteries in order to keep up with changing times. Apple is known for not having long lasting phones (in comparison to Android), but people continue to buy they latest phone because they are hooked, which allows Apple to continue to get away with things like this.
I think Apple chose to release this information now because they feel like they are popular enough that their company and sales will still be secure after revealing such controversial information. Like Bela said, people will continue to buy Apple's newest phones, even if theirs is still perfectly fine, because they are obsessed with their products. I even think that releasing this information could have been a strategic move by Apple to motivate people to buy their new phones; my dad, who has an iPhone 6s that still works very well, wanted a new iPhone even more after hearing that his phone was being slowed down. Apple should invest in new and better batteries, as their phones are already known for their short battery life. They definitely have the money and almost certainly have the connections to the resources to do so, so I feel like this problem is inexcusable now.
Although I think Apple's batteries and programmed obsolescence are quite unfair to the customers, I don't think it should be illegal. Programmed obsolescence is a huge part of the business model for many companies. It is a huge part of how many companies which long-term products and such a large reach, such as Apple are still able to make money. However programmed obsolescence is incredibly unsustainable and can have many negative environmental effects, I think it is on the customers to pick companies that create long-lasting and sustainable products. If customers begin to prioritize this while shopping for products, companies will have to begin to prioritize it as well. A great example of a company who is set on sustainability and long-term, high-quality products in Patagonia, and they have created a very successful business model and company without relying on programmed or planned obsolescence.
I think Apple is admitting to this information now because they were put on the spot. It seems they have been doing this for years, and now that people are catching on, they must have felt compelled to say something about it. However, I think what they are doing is greedy, as some people may see their phones malfunctioning and think the only way to make it better is to buy a new one. This is problematic because some people would have to fork over lots of money for a new phone, when their old one would have been fine if Apple had not intentionally diminished their abilities via updates.
Post a Comment