Internal documents reveal that Apple knew the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus were far more likely to bend than previous generation devices, reports Motherboard.
The documents surfaced in a class-action lawsuit that alleges Apple misled customers about touch disease. Apple was ordered to turn over internal testing documents and reports as part of discovery in the case. Although the documents are under seal, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh disclosed some of the information in a recent opinion.
Apple's internal testing "determined that the iPhone 6 was 3.3 times more likely to bend than the iPhone 5s (the model immediately prior to the subject iPhones) and that the iPhone 6 Plus was 7.2 times more likely to bend than the iPhone 5s."
Underscoring the point, one of the major concerns Apple identified prior to launch the iPhones was that they were "likely to bend more easily when compared to previous generations,"
Despite knowing this, Apple released a statement to address Bendgate saying, "We chose these high-quality materials and construction very carefully for their strength and durability. We also perform rigorous tests throughout the entire development cycle including 3-point bending, pressure point cycling, sit, torsion, and user studies. iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus meet or exceed all of our high-quality standards to endure everyday, real-life use."
Over time, slight bending of the iPhone 6 frame led to an issue known as touch disease. Users noticed a flickering gray bar at the top of their displays and their touchscreen would work intermittently or not at all.
"It's absolutely a problem in the design. End users are not doing anything to cause this besides using the phone normally," Mark Shaffer of iPad Rehab told Motherboard. "Really all you can do is avoid any activity that would cause the phone to flex. Don't drop it, definitely don't put it in any case that requires you to apply force to the phone to get it into and out of the case. Don't put it in your back pocket, don't put it in your front pocket if it's a tight pocket. Actually, don't put it in any pocket."
Apple denies that bending of the logic board could cause touch disease, stating that "rigorous and comprehensive reliability test data proved that enclosure bending and twisting cannot cause the issue unless the phones had already been repeatedly dropped on a hard surface." However, in November 2016, Apple announced it would replace touch-diseased phones for $149; rather than the previous charge of $349.
Additionally, the company made engineering changes in May 2016 which it never acknowledged.
“After internal investigation, Apple determined underfill was necessary to resolve the problems caused by the defect,” Koh wrote, referring to an epoxy used to stiffen the logic board. “Apple had used underfill on the preceding iPhone generation but did not start using it on the [touch disease-related] chip in the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus until May 2016,” after millions of iPhones had been sold.
Judge Koh has denied the request for class action status saying that it was vague on how damages would be calculated and failed to show why certification would materially advance the litigation as a whole.
More details in the full order linked below.
Read More
The documents surfaced in a class-action lawsuit that alleges Apple misled customers about touch disease. Apple was ordered to turn over internal testing documents and reports as part of discovery in the case. Although the documents are under seal, US District Court Judge Lucy Koh disclosed some of the information in a recent opinion.
Apple's internal testing "determined that the iPhone 6 was 3.3 times more likely to bend than the iPhone 5s (the model immediately prior to the subject iPhones) and that the iPhone 6 Plus was 7.2 times more likely to bend than the iPhone 5s."
Underscoring the point, one of the major concerns Apple identified prior to launch the iPhones was that they were "likely to bend more easily when compared to previous generations,"
Despite knowing this, Apple released a statement to address Bendgate saying, "We chose these high-quality materials and construction very carefully for their strength and durability. We also perform rigorous tests throughout the entire development cycle including 3-point bending, pressure point cycling, sit, torsion, and user studies. iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus meet or exceed all of our high-quality standards to endure everyday, real-life use."
Over time, slight bending of the iPhone 6 frame led to an issue known as touch disease. Users noticed a flickering gray bar at the top of their displays and their touchscreen would work intermittently or not at all.
"It's absolutely a problem in the design. End users are not doing anything to cause this besides using the phone normally," Mark Shaffer of iPad Rehab told Motherboard. "Really all you can do is avoid any activity that would cause the phone to flex. Don't drop it, definitely don't put it in any case that requires you to apply force to the phone to get it into and out of the case. Don't put it in your back pocket, don't put it in your front pocket if it's a tight pocket. Actually, don't put it in any pocket."
Apple denies that bending of the logic board could cause touch disease, stating that "rigorous and comprehensive reliability test data proved that enclosure bending and twisting cannot cause the issue unless the phones had already been repeatedly dropped on a hard surface." However, in November 2016, Apple announced it would replace touch-diseased phones for $149; rather than the previous charge of $349.
Additionally, the company made engineering changes in May 2016 which it never acknowledged.
“After internal investigation, Apple determined underfill was necessary to resolve the problems caused by the defect,” Koh wrote, referring to an epoxy used to stiffen the logic board. “Apple had used underfill on the preceding iPhone generation but did not start using it on the [touch disease-related] chip in the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus until May 2016,” after millions of iPhones had been sold.
Judge Koh has denied the request for class action status saying that it was vague on how damages would be calculated and failed to show why certification would materially advance the litigation as a whole.
More details in the full order linked below.
Read More