Question Class Action Lawsuit against OnePlus launched

[null0seven]

I just read about top most powerfull phones of 2021...
OnePlus 9 Pro was nr.3.

 

[toolhas4degrees]

I honestly think I'm an idiot because I don't notice lag on my phone at all. I wonder why. Maybe I'm just use to crappy phones? I'm coming from a 6T.

That being said, if my phone is throttling, I definitely do not want it too. I want the full potential for sure.

How can I test my phone for throttling?

Open in chrome. If it's under 88 you're being thottled

Speedometer 2.0

 

[gorilla p]

Open in chrome. If it's under 88 you're being thottled

Speedometer 2.0

I used brave on my OP9 and scored 43.6

 

[toolhas4degrees]

I used brave on my OP9 and scored 43.6

Yep def throttled

 

[Buslova]

My question is how much of real life performance (waiting time) are we experiencing in the apps that are being throttled? Is it so significant that we even notice AND if so, do the battery savings (and less heat for some people) justify it? I understand that many "want the performance power they paid for" however if it is hardly a difference and in apps that don't NEED the full power of the CPU, then I agree with oneplus that there is no need to drain the battery on them. Everyone also wants to use speedometer and other tests that spit out a number but real life usage is what matters. No one even noticed until Aandtech ran benchmarks and dug in once seeing some number comparisons. They didn't notice from using the phone. Saying all this however, I DO believe this throttling should be part of a toggle like optimize battery performance that way everyone has a choice. However a law suit over this? Come on people, this is one reason so many things cost so much now. We are so quick to litigate to try and make a quick buck that some companies have to figure cost of retaining legal council into their total yearly expenses and that trickles down into the cost of their products.

 

[Levus]

It's ridiculous. Everyone is free to choose another phone or sell it in case it feels it not meet the expectations but based on a hw/software config a lawsuit ...come on... then do a lawsuit against OC motherboard manufacturers and so on......
It's one of the best phones on the market ATM.
I had an s10+ lately or i can mention my last phone before, a Note 20. All throttled as hell and Battery Life was way worse than OP 9 Pro.

 

[AndyC76]

Definitely throttled 64.

 

[Jomsha]

24. Seems Throttled
OP9 Pro 11.2.9.9 LE15DA

 

[Battlehero]

My question is how much of real life performance (waiting time) are we experiencing in the apps that are being throttled? Is it so significant that we even notice AND if so, do the battery savings (and less heat for some people) justify it? I understand that many "want the performance power they paid for" however if it is hardly a difference and in apps that don't NEED the full power of the CPU, then I agree with oneplus that there is no need to drain the battery on them. Everyone also wants to use speedometer and other tests that spit out a number but real life usage is what matters. No one even noticed until Aandtech ran benchmarks and dug in once seeing some number comparisons. They didn't notice from using the phone. Saying all this however, I DO believe this throttling should be part of a toggle like optimize battery performance that way everyone has a choice. However a law suit over this? Come on people, this is one reason so many things cost so much now. We are so quick to litigate to try and make a quick buck that some companies have to figure cost of retaining legal council into their total yearly expenses and that trickles down into the cost of their products.

Well, these companies should then also be transparent about their business practices. If you have to put aside money for legal litigations then that should be red flag in itself.

It's not so much about making a quick buck, it's more of a lesson that should hopefully teach the company in question and other competitors that are trying to sneak past shady practices.

 

[Buslova]

Well, these companies should then also be transparent about their business practices. If you have to put aside money for legal litigations then that should be red flag in itself.

It's not so much about making a quick buck, it's more of a lesson that should hopefully teach the company in question and other competitors that are trying to sneak past shady practices.

Legit question. What did they do that was shady? Did they promise users that the device wouldn't throttle? About the only thing I can see would be if they posted benchmark results (like all manufacturers usually do) instead of individual app performance without stating *some apps will have reduced performance. I mean even when Aandtech noticed the throttling from what I remember they owned up to it saying it was for apps that don't need the full potential of the device and therefore it would save battery and reduce heat/wear on the components. Manufacturers make decisions all the time that they feel improve their product. Did they ever state it would run all apps 100% at all times? I just don't understand the big deal. Like I said, I still think there should be a toggle or bake this throttling into the already existing battery optimization toggle but even as a performance dork myself who has overclocked everything I've owned since 386 processors; I just don't see the big deal here. But, IF they did make direct false claims (not false claims that the users ASSUMED because throttling some apps wasn't disclosed) then I understand and I'd like someone to link the proof so I can read it and maybe take a new position on the matter.

 

[Battlehero]

Legit question. What did they do that was shady? Did they promise users that the device wouldn't throttle? About the only thing I can see would be if they posted benchmark results (like all manufacturers usually do) instead of individual app performance without stating *some apps will have reduced performance. I mean even when Aandtech noticed the throttling from what I remember they owned up to it saying it was for apps that don't need the full potential of the device and therefore it would save battery and reduce heat/wear on the components. Manufacturers make decisions all the time that they feel improve their product. Did they ever state it would run all apps 100% at all times? I just don't understand the big deal. Like I said, I still think there should be a toggle or bake this throttling into the already existing battery optimization toggle but even as a performance dork myself who has overclocked everything I've owned since 386 processors; I just don't see the big deal here. But, IF they did make direct false claims (not false claims that the users ASSUMED because throttling some apps wasn't disclosed) then I understand and I'd like someone to link the proof so I can read it and maybe take a new position on the matter.

Shady practices = Altering performance behind the scenes. Withholding "performance optimisations" which affect the user experience. I have noticed the performance impact whilst using Chrome and apps that use Chrome to open links.

"Did they promise users that the device wouldn't throttle?" Are you really going to use this argument? If the device throttled due to external factors then that's not the fault of the OEM. But if the device throttles by design then it is.

I agree that there should be a toggle for it, but it shouldn't require the end users to complain for this to be the case.

 

[Buslova]

Shady practices = Altering performance behind the scenes. Withholding "performance optimisations" which affect the user experience. I have noticed the performance impact whilst using Chrome and apps that use Chrome to open links.

"Did they promise users that the device wouldn't throttle?" Are you really going to use this argument? If the device throttled due to external factors then that's not the fault of the OEM. But if the device throttles by design then it is.

I agree that there should be a toggle for it, but it shouldn't require the end users to complain for this to be the case

Sorry, I disagree. Unless they actively hid it or lied about it they weren't being "shady" and to say so is making assumptions. They may have genuinely thought it was the right choice for battery & device life. It's their choice to make the device however they please.

 

[Battlehero]

Sorry, I disagree. Unless they actively hid it or lied about it they weren't being "shady" and to say so is making assumptions. They may have genuinely thought it was the right choice for battery & device life. It's their choice to make the device however they please.

Some people need to understand that blind company loyalty only hurts them in the end.

Don't know what more "actively hid it or lied about it" you are referring to. There was no communication about the feature until there was outrage.

"It's their choice to make the device however they please"
It's our choice as customers to sue them if they step out of line.



"They may have genuinely thought it was the right choice for battery & device life."

"...to say so is making assumptions"

Need I say more

 

[Buslova]

Some people need to understand that blind company loyalty only hurts them in the end.

Don't know what more "actively hid it or lied about it" you are referring to. There was no communication about the feature until there was outrage.

"It's their choice to make the device however they please"
It's our choice as customers to sue them if they step out of line.



"They may have genuinely thought it was the right choice for battery & device life."

"...to say so is making assumptions"

Need I say more

There is a reason I used the words "may have." I'm making no assumptions unlike yourslef and btw, I have zero "blind" brand loyalty. 1st time owning one of their devices. As I said before, I see nothing that proves they lied about what their device was doing. That would be shady and suit worthy. These consumers are just butt hurt that they made assumptions that the device would always run @ 100% performance on all apps. The OEM said they made it that way on purpose and will include a toggle in the future. Is that good enough? NOOOO. LET'S SUE 'EM AND MAKE $10 OFF A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT! dumb. Having worked in the mobile industry, I've seen just how illogical, entitled, and ANGRY people get over a stupid phone. Always amazes me.

 

[Battlehero]

There is a reason I used the words "may have." I'm making no assumptions unlike yourslef and btw, I have zero "blind" brand loyalty. 1st time owning one of their devices. As I said before, I see nothing that proves they lied about what their device was doing. That would be shady and suit worthy. These consumers are just butt hurt that they made assumptions that the device would always run @ 100% performance on all apps. The OEM said they made it that way on purpose and will include a toggle in the future. Is that good enough? NOOOO. LET'S SUE 'EM AND MAKE $10 OFF A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT! dumb. Having worked in the mobile industry, I've seen just how illogical, entitled, and ANGRY people get over a stupid phone. Always amazes me.

I have already answered why the law suit is justified, they can't just throttle performance and make the decision on behalf of the consumer, they are going to add the toggle and hopefully it teaches them a lesson to give the consumer the choice and not make decisions on their behalf. Android isn't iOS.

Other phones using the same chip seem to be running fine for the most part. The battery life isn't great on the OP 9Pro compared to the competition anyways.

You yourself are highlighting that it's not about the money since "$10" isn't a lot.

I think it's best to say that we agree to disagree as we clearly aren't getting anywhere with this.

 

[Blue_Monk]

Open in chrome. If it's under 88 you're being thottled

Speedometer 2.0

I get 74 on OP9Pro and 64 on my gaming laptop. How in god's name does that work then?

EDIT: I did a few more test on my laptop with chrome and looks like I'm at around 80. I'm guessing I had too many tabs opened the first time.

 

[phr0zen]

People like to reference cars for arguments such as this, and the "if I paid for the speed, I better get it" arguments. I, like to think of it as an oven. Let's say you bought an oven. The oven manufacturer advertised their oven as the best cooking with the newest heating element and the newest insulation. This oven has the standard temperature settings that you're used to with no new buttons telling you anything is different. You spend premium price for it and give it a whirl with a fresh batch of cookies. You turn it on, throw your cookies in, and after they should be done, they're not. You try again and end up with undercooked food. Sure, you can turn up the heat and it'll fix the problem, but that's not the issue. You call the manufacturer of the oven and they tell you it's a "feature" and they think everyone could benefit from using less electricity or gas, despite having the temperatures marked as they should be. Then they tell you they're protecting the oven from overheating. Then all your friends tell you you're overreacting because a hotter oven will heat your home too much and to get over it. Did the company specifically advertise their temperatures are accurate? No. No oven manufacturer does. You assume it's accurate because it's just supposed to be. But they hid an important fact about their product and tried to sell it as something that never should have been to begin with.

Did OnePlus give raw, solid numbers? No. But they touted the power of the phone, it's capabilities, the new processor, etc. They led the public to believe their product was superior to others. When in reality, they throttle apps without telling people that's what they're doing - this is called deception. Just like the oven.

 

[lu.thor]

On the latest android 11 OOS w/ Arter kernel and Ram boost off. Brave browser benchmark scored 96 Chrome 88.6, and Geekbench scores are 1123 for single core and 3585 for multicore.

 

[null0seven]

I would like a lawsuit to get rid of google BS. Clean, nice Oxygen OS.

 

[6addri]

Seems like they removed it and replaced with oppo's performance balancing in 12. Which is not based on package name detection.
So issue is solved. No point to continue this I think.