14 DAY TRIAL // American daily newspaper The New York Times is about to make another fatal mistake in its crusade against Apple and its products, invoking a conspiracy theory about planned obsolescence, and how the Cupertino giant specifically designs its phones to break down just as new versions are about to be released.
Catherine Rampell, the author of NY Times’ “Cracking the Apple Trap,” clearly hadn’t done her homework when she decided to shift into gear with this first paragraph.
“Around the time the iPhone 5S and 5C were released, in September, I noticed that my sad old iPhone 4 was becoming a lot more sluggish. The battery was starting to run down much faster, too. But the same thing seemed to be happening to a lot of people who, like me, swear by their Apple products. When I called tech analysts, they said that the new operating system (iOS 7) being pushed out to existing users was making older models unbearably slow. Apple phone batteries, which have a finite number of charges in them to begin with, were drained by the new software. So I could pay Apple $79 to replace the battery, or perhaps spend 20 bucks more for an iPhone 5C. It seemed like Apple was sending me a not-so-subtle message to upgrade.”
Apple batteries "have a finite number of charges in them to begin with...?!”
All batteries have a finite number of charges, not just Apple’s. If anything, Apple’s cells are holding up quite nicely compared to its rivals’ phones.
That “not-so-subtle message to upgrade” comes from Sir Common Sense, not Apple. It kicks in when you want to use the latest software, which usually takes advantage of the latest hardware, not because Apple wants it necessarily, but because there’s a thing called Moore’s Law, which Rampell obviously knows nothing about. Those tech experts she’s been talking to should have clued her in.
The piece continues with various examples of planned obsolescence throughout human history. The stories themselves are real, but none of them can be seen or used as evidence that Apple is engaging in such practices with the iPhone.
Then there’s this paragraph:
“There is, however, a simple way to effectively render an old product obsolete without fleecing your existing customers. Instead of degrading the old model, companies can offer innovations in the new model that make upgrading irresistible.”
Another way of putting it would be, “Companies constantly make better products.” Period.
What, would you prefer them not to? Would you prefer to go to work in a Flintstone footmobile dressed in tree bark, rather than wear a suit and drive a Lexus?
As a final note, I’d like to point out the fact that you can end up with a busted smartphone by your own fault, and it won’t take you three years either.
Any smartphone can sustain irreparable damage if you’re so ignorant as to throw it around all the time, charge its battery using a knockoff adapter, hold it next to keys and change, leave it in the sun on your back seat, put it on the washing machine as you take a shower (not wanting to miss those precious tweets), and so on and so forth.
Not saying the author did that but, as you read the piece, you're supposed to believe that said iPhone 4 hasn’t gone through any of the above. And Mrs. Rampell can't make that promise.
The kicker? The NY Times has scheduled an appearance of this story, in print, on November 3.”
“A version of this article appears in print on November 3, 2013, on page MM16 of the Sunday Magazine with the headline: Cracking the Apple Trap.”
You’d think they’ll make fools of themselves with this story, but the reality is a lot of people will buy it. Apple could probably be entitled to sue here.
It’s one thing to show the harsh working conditions in Chinese iPhone assembly lines, it’s another to downright state that Apple is deliberately deceiving its customers. Especially when your reader base is in the millions.
Disclaimer
This is a Personal Thoughts piece reflecting the author’s personal opinion on matters relating to Apple and / or the products associated with the Apple brand. This article should not be taken as the official stance of Softpedia on Apple-related matters.