When Apple.Inc Broke Consumer Trust and Paid $613 Million in Damages

Apple came under fire from social media giants earlier this year when it decided to give the control of tracking user activity on apple phones to its device owners. While social media giants like Facebook started a war against Apple as it meant a major setback to their advertising revenue, most of us welcomed this move, as it gave control of our data in our hands.

Undoubtedly, Apple is one of the most trusted brands out there, which enjoys a loyal following.

But, the big question is, can these big brands be trusted?

We all know what Facebook did to Whatsapp users, holding them to gunpoint for their data access, which it can manipulate to its advantage. And what Apple did was precisely the opposite and gained a lot of appreciation for its ethical behavior.

But, Apple is no saint when it comes to manipulating consumers. Apple loyalists may shoot me for saying that, but I have a reason to support my statement.

Apple’s unethical growth strategy

Sales sabotage does not rank high in any company policy unless you are Apple Inc., in which case throttling your devices is a sales tactic.

Think about it: Apple seems to have a new phone out all the time.

It looks like having new models released every few months is a new norm of business. Apple is not the only guilty party here, but it makes a great example.

But who is upgrading so fast? and more importantly, why are they upgrading so fast?

Apple devices come at a premium, and the company keeps on increasing the price year on year. Without a doubt, the company is a pioneer in technology innovations and a front runner in providing the best features and premium quality hardware in their devices. Still, you will agree that they don’t come cheap, so changing your device every few years is impossible for most users.

I know you would say, what’s the big deal? Yes, you are right, and I know Apple is not the only company. Every company brings new models every year. But, it is the biggest brand that has a lawsuit in multiple countries against it, and you would understand my remarks if you learned of these legal actions.

The reason behind the lawsuit against Apple

A lawsuit was filed against Apple in Chile. Apple has agreed to pay Chilian customers $3.4 million. What for?

This is where the story gets interesting. Apple programmed its phones to have a limited lifespan. Yes, you read it right. The idea was to reduce durability so that phones slow down or conk-off and customers are forced to come back to buy a new one.

Sounds true, right?

If not, think about the mobile ads. The maximum focus is on processor speed, frame speed, and battery. And with a slow phone in hand, you are more likely to get intrigued by the faster new product.

It’s unethical and, more importantly, illegal for a brand to have such business practices. But still, most of the industries use it.

About Apple, 150,000 users in Chile complained of underperformance in models 6 plus and later after a software upgrade in 2017. Most of these users received a software upgrade, and like all ordinary people, they downloaded it. But from that point, the phone slowed down.

In the tech world, this is called ‘planned obsolescence,’ and I am not talking theory; Apple admitted to doing this in 2017. Thirty American states sued apple for slowing their phone.

Last year, the company paid $613 million in compensation. In France, it paid $27 million; in Italy, it paid $5.7 million in damages due to device throttling.

And this wasn’t for some software upgrade gone wrong; it was a planned strategy to make existing customers keep buying more.

These are not civil lawsuits because planned obsolescence is a criminal charge that most prominent players in multiple industries unfortunately perfect.

Planned obsolescence is a foolproof business strategy across industries

Look at the manufacturer’s warranty on your electronic products; it’s one, two, or five years based on the product. In reality, this is not the warranty period but the lifespan of the product.

The moment the warranty runs out, the product malfunctions. Coincidence right? But the fact is, this is all choreographed. Most products are designed to fail after the warranty period. I have personally experienced it with my laptop batteries or even my printer cartridges.

This is done to ensure that we customers go back to the shops again and again. It’s a foolproof business model.

But as I said earlier, it’s illegal. Planned obsolescence cuts at the root of sustainability. If you buy a new phone, it means you’re discarding an old one. If you buy a new laptop battery, it means you’re dumping an old one, same with clothes or other electrical appliances in your house.

Where do all of these old discarded products go? Nowhere, they pile up as waste. A lot of it is non-biodegradable waste, or in the case of phones — digital waste.

This strategy is not unique to digital; most industries employ it. In the world of fashion, it’s packaged as fast fashion. Cheap clothes — buy them, wear them, and throw them.

But these clothes do not disappear down a black hole; they too pile up.

The dangerous practice is followed across the board, but the tech giants are industry leaders in planned obsolescence.

Not only do they sabotage their phones, but they also reserve the right to repair them. Have you ever seen the insides of a modern-day device? It is way too complicated for most people. And companies take advantage of this. They alone know how to repair their devices or have the parts needed for this repair.

And this is where the right-to-repair movement comes in. It started in the U.S., but it’s slowly gaining currency all over the world.

What is this right to repair movement?

Let me give you another example, suppose your phone’s battery is dead, the circuit inside also needs fixing; you go to the licensed seller, and they give you an estimate.

And no surprises; it’s more than half of your phone’s price tag. Now if these parts, tools, and know-how to fix your phone were readily available — not just to the company but also to independent repairers. Imagine the amount of money you could have saved. And, this is the idea behind the right-to-repair movement.

But how do we achieve the required outcome?

A lot is in your hands as their customers. Consumers together have the power to demand more from producers. And for that, we need to use that one magical word — that one word every company dreads of — “Boycott.”

If we demand durability and the right to repair from the producers, they cannot resist for long.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not against upgrading; I’m not against innovation.

All I’m saying is that our purchases should stem from our interest and not compulsion or manipulation.

In a fair and just world, that’s not being unreasonable or asking for much.

References :

The lawsuit against Apple in Chile.

France fines Apple $27 million for intentionally slowing down iPhones

Italian regulator fines Apple $5.7 million for intentionally slowing down iPhones