Recently, Apple was ordered by a South Korean court to pay compensation to some users for deliberately reducing the performance of the old iPhone after a software update, which has attracted widespread attention. In fact, the incident, known as "Batterygate", dates back to the end of 2017, when users accused Apple of such "artificially slowing" behavior. This article will trace back to the source in detail and analyze the beginning and end of this dual crisis of public relations and law.
The article reveals the considerations behind Apple's business decisions and the possible ripple effects of this action. Finally, the author summarizes the systematic suggestions for solving such problems, aiming to encourage relevant enterprises and regulatory authorities to take active actions to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.
First, the beginning and end of the incident
On January 24, 2017, Apple pushed iOS 102。1 System update to limit processor speed to extend battery life, but does not inform the user of the specifics. The move quickly sparked heated discussions in the community, and Apple's public relations team was silent about the matter. It wasn't until the end of 2017 that external technical tests revealed Apple's people's behavior, which caused strong consumer dissatisfaction.
2. Legal penalties
In response to Apple's negative response, consumers in South Korea, the United States, and many parts of Europe have filed class action lawsuits against Apple. In 2018, more than 620,000 South Korean iPhone users have accused Apple of forcing a device update in disguise. After years of lawsuits, the South Korean court finally ruled that Apple should pay about 380 yuan to each of the seven plaintiffs.
3. Commercial considerations
In fact, this is not the first time that Apple has faced legal sanctions for the "speed gate" incident. The underlying reason for this type of incident is that companies make profit maximization their first priority out of business considerations. Apple, for example, makes huge profits on its hardware thanks to its innovative design, but iOS system updates bring a steady stream of service revenue.
Fourth, the chain reaction
In the UK, consumer advocate Justin Gutmann has demanded a total of 7£500 million. The class action lawsuit, which covers iPhone 6 to iPhone X, was upheld by the court. Similar cases are not uncommon at the global level, leaving tech giants like Apple facing a public relations crisis. This can lead to damage to the company's image, which in turn affects future product sales.
5. Response suggestions
In response to such events, policymakers and regulators need to take action at three levels: (1) companies should be more transparent and clearly inform consumers of expected changes in product performance;(2) The regulatory authorities shall increase the punishment in accordance with the law and severely punish enterprises that harm the interests of users;(3) Consumers should raise their awareness of their rights and actively defend their legitimate rights and interests.
By working together, we can help to avoid the recurrence of such problems. Let us join hands to maintain a fair and just consumption environment. Some netizens said: Apple's defeat this time fully shows that Chinese consumers' awareness of rights protection is constantly increasing, and China's judicial system is gradually improving. Consumers have the right to defend their interests, no matter what kind of big companies they are facing, and the courts will be on the side of the people.
Some netizens also said: I hope Apple can learn a lesson and not always put business interests above customer experience. The advancement and innovation of products are important, but it is more important to win the trust and loyalty of consumers. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the best technology and services to gain a foothold in the market.
Some netizens said: This incident reflects more of the "double standard" of Chinese consumers. When the same problem occurs with a domestic brand, everyone is always emotional and abusive. And Apple, a foreign brand, even if it is proven to be fraudulent, many fruit fans still choose to forgive and trust. This kind of differential treatment is in itself worth pondering.
Overall, the lessons of this incident are significant. It not only touches the bottom line of corporate business ethics, but also tests the progress of the construction of the rule of law by the regulatory authorities, and also involves the awareness of the rights of every consumer. Let us continue to uphold justice and promote common progress through rational discussions.
What are your thoughts on this topic?Welcome to leave a comment below, if you like the article, please pay attention and like!