Apple acordó pagar 113 millones de dólares para instalarse con los usuarios de iPhone cuyas velocidades de reloj de teléfonos inteligentes se redujeron artificialmente para impulsar las ventas de hardware, un movimiento estúpido por parte de Apple que merece 'para ser examinado.
The company has cleverly built a strategy based on trust and prestige, creating an environment where loyal customers are more than willing to pay for the Apple brand. His best confidence effort was his stance on password access. This is where Apple strongly opposes law enforcement at the state, city and federal levels, saying it won't help reveal a password because it simply designed the devices. so you can't do it easily. The marketing goal is to make people believe that Apple is on their side and will protect their private data no matter what. Like I said, smart. The prestige is evident, where Apple releases each new iPhone as if it were a phone version of a Mercedes-Benz S-Class or a Rolex watch. Given that Apple relies on these kinds of insights, why would it deliberately slow down phones to boost sales? Yes, Apple has argued that it was really just an effort to extend battery life. If that had been true (hint: it never was), Apple would have announced it when they started. The silence makes Apple's denials ridiculous. According to the Attorney General's investigations in 34 states and Washington, DC, "Apple discovered that battery problems were causing iPhones to turn off unexpectedly. However, instead of disclosing these problems or replacing the batteries, Apple hid the problems." to consumers Apple's cover-up eventually led to a software update in December 2016 that drastically reduced iPhone performance to prevent phones from shutting down unexpectedly General advocates say Apple's cover-up of battery problems and the decision to limit the performance of consumer iPhones led Apple to profit from the sale of additional iPhones to consumers whose Apple phone performance had been reduced." The case against Apple was about "unexpected power offs" or "UPO". The complaint filed in this case was much more specific:
< p style="padding-left: 30px;">Apple has limited the amount of battery information available to its consumers, making it difficult for consumers to determine the real reason they are encountering UPOs. Apple has never publicly disclosed that the UPO problem exists. 'extended well beyond what Apple claimed to be a very small number of the iPhone 6s devices involved in the recall. Instead, Apple's claims regarding the extent of the UPO problems in late 2016 were false, misleading, and even contradictory, and were directed solely at the Chinese market, despite the fact that the UPOs. Thus, contrary to Apple's public statements, the UPO issue did not affect "a few" or "a very few" Users or devices at the end of 2016. Instead, the UPO issue affected millions of users on a daily basis. ... Apple's behavior confirms this understanding, given that it ultimately chose to adopt a drastic countermeasure that was not limited to a ``small number'' of devices, but was delivered to the entire installed base of iPhone series devices. 6 with iOS 10.2.1 and 7 series devices on iOS 11.2. It all makes so little sense. Apple had to know that these details would eventually become public. I suppose there is a philosophical ethical question involved: if a company thinks it will allow itself to cheat its customers to increase its revenue and profit, should it continue? In this case, that wasn't the problem; Apple execs had to know they'd get caught fast. Any discussion of Apple's ethics should be postponed until someone finds out that Apple actually has ethics. Knowing that this would hurt the perception of the iPhone, and especially Apple's trust, what Apple was thinking when it approved this plan, which looks like something created by a James Bond villain or Mr. Burns from The Simpsons.. I wish Apple had focused more on the capabilities of iOS and iPhone Instead of trying to convince people to buy new devices, the latest iPhone release did nothing but increase processor speeds, provide unnecessary 5G claims, and add minor capabilities that few cared about. (Now if you had added Touch ID during a pandemic, you would have given people a reason to upgrade.) Has Apple learned a lesson? Probably, but it wasn't the right lesson. Years after the incident, Apple was forced to pay a negligible amount (well, negligible to Apple). For example, it was not forced to refund the purchase price of each iPhone sold due to the recession, in addition to fines and penalties. Now, that would have made Apple think differently. As long as you get caught cheating and are allowed to keep most of the money, you have no reason to change.
<p>Copyright © 2020 IDG Communications, Inc.</p>