Consumer Rights Wiki - User contributions [en]

Apple App Store

2026-06-18T10:01:04Z

SyrianClippy: Add summary for new data collection

{{ToneWarning}}
{{ProductCargo
|ArticleType=Service
|Category=Software marketplace
|Company=Apple
|Description=Software marketplace for official Apple products
|InProduction=Yes
|Logo=App Store (iOS).svg
|ProductLine=
|ReleaseYear=2008
|Website=https://www.apple.com/app-store/
}}

'''[[Apple]]''' uses a range of technical measures to maintain control over the App Store ecosystem. While Apple cites security and user-friendliness as the reasoning behind these measures, they often create roadblocks for users as well as app developers. Some of the methods Apple uses to control its ecosystem hinders lawmakers' ability to advocate for the rights of consumers and businesses within Apple's ecosystem and prevents apps from being as useful and free as their customers expect.

Although there are supported iOS application installation source alternatives such as [https://altstore.io/ Altstore], they are not commonly used or known, which gives Apple a practical monopoly over iOS users and iOS app developers.

Apple has made claims that they are unaware about the profitability of the App Store<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lovejoy |first=Ben |date=17 Apr 2024 |title=Schiller doesn’t know whether the App Store is profitable; there are no minutes of meetings |url=https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/17/app-store-is-profitable-apple-notes/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250723043225/https://9to5mac.com/2024/04/17/app-store-is-profitable-apple-notes/ |archive-date=23 Jul 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=9to5Mac}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Lovejoy |first=Ben |date=17 Jan 2025 |title=Apple denies App Store profit margin is 75% – claims to have no clue |url=https://9to5mac.com/2025/01/17/apple-denies-app-store-profit-margin-is-75-claims-to-have-no-clue/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251218063018/https://9to5mac.com/2025/01/17/apple-denies-app-store-profit-margin-is-75-claims-to-have-no-clue/ |archive-date=18 Dec 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=9to5Mac}}</ref> but takes fees of up to 30% on digital product sales and subscriptions,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mehta |first=Tushar |date=2025-05-06 |title=Apple cuts App Store fees, but experts urge caution against new U.S. pricing guidelines |url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/phones/what-experts-say-about-apple-app-store-pricing-changes/ |access-date=2026-02-20 |website=digitaltrends}} ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251228044205/https://www.digitaltrends.com/phones/what-experts-say-about-apple-app-store-pricing-changes/ Archived])</ref> ranging from game currency to supporting content creators<ref name="patreon">{{Cite web |last=Roth |first=Emma |date=12 Aug 2024 |title=Patreon: adding Apple’s 30 percent tax is the price of staying in the App Store |url=https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/12/24218629/patreon-membership-ios-30-percent-apple-tax |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260128112633/https://www.theverge.com/2024/8/12/24218629/patreon-membership-ios-30-percent-apple-tax |archive-date=28 Jan 2026|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref> to booking a Zoom call with a local business.<ref name="facebook">{{Cite web |last=Paul |first=Katie |last2=Nellis |first2=Stephen |date=28 Aug 2020 |title=Exclusive: Facebook says Apple rejected its attempt to tell users about App Store fees |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-apple-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-says-apple-rejected-its-attempt-to-tell-users-about-app-store-fees-idUSKBN25O042/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20241110215209/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-apple-exclusive/exclusive-facebook-says-apple-rejected-its-attempt-to-tell-users-about-app-store-fees-idUSKBN25O042/ |archive-date=10 Nov 2024|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=Reuters}}</ref> Some argue that these fees hinder iOS app developers from innovating because this money cannot be used to further improve their applications.{{Citation needed}} There are groups in support of developers who are experiencing difficulties in continuing development due to Apple (and [[Google]]'s) fees of between 15% and 30% of all revenue. These groups deny the notion that Apple and Google require the money generated by the app more than the developer.{{Citation needed}} These fees also push app developers to increase prices to maximize profits, which increases the prices for end users.

Because of this, several governments including South Korea,<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 Mar 2022 |title=South Korea approves rules on app store law targeting Apple, Google |url=https://www.reuters.com/technology/skorea-approves-rules-app-store-law-targeting-apple-google-2022-03-08/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20231110110331/https://www.reuters.com/technology/skorea-approves-rules-app-store-law-targeting-apple-google-2022-03-08/ |archive-date=10 Nov 2023|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=Reuters}}</ref> Japan,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sharwood |first=Simon |date=13 Jun 2024 |title=Japan forces Apple and Google to allow third-party app stores and payments |url=https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/13/japan_smartphone_software_law/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251114004250/https://www.theregister.com/2024/06/13/japan_smartphone_software_law/ |archive-date=14 Nov 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref> the European Union (EU),<ref>{{Cite web |title=Digital Markets Act |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260210074954/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Markets_Act |archive-date=10 Feb 2026 |website=Wikipedia}}</ref> the United Kingdom,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Competition and Markets Authority |date=4 Mar 2021 |title=Investigation into Apple AppStore |url=https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-apple-appstore |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251019195700/https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/investigation-into-apple-appstore |archive-date=19 Oct 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=gov.uk}}</ref> Australia,<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 Apr 2021 |title=Dominance of Apple and Google's app stores impacting competition and consumers |url=https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/dominance-of-apple-and-googles-app-stores-impacting-competition-and-consumers |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251216185602/https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/dominance-of-apple-and-googles-app-stores-impacting-competition-and-consumers |archive-date=16 Dec 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=ACCC}}</ref> as well as the US and a handful of US States<ref>{{Cite web |title=Open App Markets Act |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_App_Markets_Act |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260206000944/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_App_Markets_Act |archive-date=6 Feb 2026 |website=Wikipedia}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=20 Nov 2024 |title=S.5364 - App Store Accountability Act |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/5364/text/is |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251113053216/https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/5364/text/is |archive-date=13 Nov 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=congress.gov}}</ref><ref name="doj">{{Cite web |last=Balsamo |first=Mike |last2=Liedtke |first2=Mike |last3=Whitehurst |first3=Lindsay |last4=Bajak |first4=Frank |date=21 Mar 2024 |title=Justice Department sues Apple, alleging it illegally monopolized the smartphone market |url=https://apnews.com/article/apple-antitrust-monopoly-app-store-justice-department-822d7e8f5cf53a2636795fcc33ee1fc3 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251007161133/https://apnews.com/article/apple-antitrust-monopoly-app-store-justice-department-822d7e8f5cf53a2636795fcc33ee1fc3 |archive-date=7 Oct 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=APNews}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=19 Feb 2021 |title=It’s time to free ourselves from ‘Big Tech’ monopoly |url=https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2021/02/19/its-time-to-free-ourselves-from-big-tech-monopoly/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260205235654/https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2021/02/19/its-time-to-free-ourselves-from-big-tech-monopoly/ |archive-date=5 Feb 2026|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=Arizona Capitol Times}}</ref> have opened investigations into anti-competitive practices as well as have considered or passed legislation to require "gatekeeper platforms" such as Apple to be more reasonable with third-party developers.

In response to such legislative measures, Apple has instituted geo-blocking operating system functionality based on physical location,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Eligibility |url=https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Eligibility |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251202053700/https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Eligibility |archive-date=2 Dec 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[he Apple Wiki}}</ref> misrepresenting/overstating risks, and using careful wording with commonly understood terms to describe difficult-to-use systems.{{Citation needed}}

Unlike traditional software license purchases, Apple's App Store terms tie the license to a specific account, making it impossible for users to resell their licenses secondhand, buy apps secondhand, or inherit a license from a relative.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2014-02-10 |title=I can sell my apps? |url=https://discussions.apple.com/thread/5888894 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/nbrEh |archive-date=23 Feb 2026 |access-date=2025-11-25 |website=Apple Community}}</ref> This system has since been copied by numerous other players in the media and digital goods sector.

==Background info==
Important terms in this article:

*'''[[wikipedia:Sandbox (computer security)|Sandbox]]''': Reduces the user's device/data exposure to security risks by reducing what an app is allowed to do.
*'''[https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Entitlements Entitlements]''': Apple's method of "poking holes" in the sandbox to give the app more permissions. Some are available to developers, while many are only available to Apple.
*'''[[wikipedia:Digital Markets Act|Digital Markets Act]]''': The European Union's recent regulations targeted at large "Big Tech" companies, classified as "Gatekeepers," and aimed at creating a more fair level of competition in digital markets, particularly for small or emerging companies.

==In-app purchases==
Apple has been collecting users' credit card numbers since launching the iTunes Store in 2004. The launch of the App Store in 2008, followed by the introduction of in-app purchases (IAPs) in 2009, allowed iPhone app developers to sell app features to users. The IAP system is provided as a developer framework named [https://developer.apple.com/storekit/ StoreKit]. Apps and their in-app purchases are managed through a dashboard named [https://developer.apple.com/app-store-connect/ App Store Connect]. App sales have eclipsed iTunes Store sales and are now a primary focus of Apple's Media Services division. Apple requires that any purchase of a digital good or service within an app use its in-app purchase system.

App Store purchase fees range from 15% to 30%. In September 2016, Apple expanded subscriptions to be available for any type of app, also introducing a 15% discount incentive for users who had already subscribed for a year.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Goode |first=Lauren |date=2 Sep 2016 |title=Apple’s new subscription offerings are now available to App Store developers |url=https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/2/12774758/apple-developers-app-store-new-subscription-rules |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250824120838/https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/2/12774758/apple-developers-app-store-new-subscription-rules |archive-date=24 Aug 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref> In November 2020, Apple introduced a reduced 15% fee for app developers with annual revenue below $1 million.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Centers |first=Josh |date=18 Nov 2020 |title=Apple Drops App Store Commission to 15% for Small Developers |url=https://tidbits.com/2020/11/18/apple-drops-app-store-commission-to-15-for-small-developers/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251114134335/https://tidbits.com/2020/11/18/apple-drops-app-store-commission-to-15-for-small-developers/ |archive-date=14 Nov 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=TidBITS}}</ref> For developers above this threshold, and for cases excluded from this program, such as for games, the fee is 30%. In the 2008 announcement of the App Store, Apple considered this a reasonable, industry-standard fee. However, the way we use apps has significantly evolved since 2009 - the world has shifted to heavily depend upon mobile apps, which have also evolved into more complex and sustainable business models than a simple one-time purchase.

[[wikipedia:Stripe, Inc.|Stripe]], a popular platform used for payments on the web, uses a base fee of 2.9% plus a fixed $0.30 in the United States.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pricing |url=https://stripe.com/it/pricing |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251116070029/https://stripe.com/it/pricing |archive-date=16 Nov 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Stripe]]}}</ref> With add-on services, before considering volume discounts, a Stripe transaction may have a cost of 6.4% + $1.10.<ref>Calculated from base fee (2.9% + $0.30) + international card (1.5%) + adaptive pricing (2%) + international payment methods ($0.80), as of January 2025</ref> Stripe has been used by businesses ranging from small online stores to [[OpenAI]] for ChatGPT Plus. Competing payment services have similar or identical fees to Stripe. '''The in-app purchase system does not provide sufficient value to justify the considerably higher costs compared to alternative payment platforms.'''

The App Store system poorly handles secondary marketplaces of digital services that exist within the primary App Store marketplace, such as Patreon. Apple requires companies selling digital services to use this inadequate system, in which app developers must account for Apple's fee, which is significant enough to warrant price increases, and to follow rules even if they do not align with the nature of the service being provided. This has led to disputes between Apple and app developers and injects complications at no benefit to the marketplace, the developers, or the end users. The main beneficiary of this system is Apple, which has little to no involvement after delivering the initial app download to the user's phone. The significant fee also often drives app developers to consider building their app around an advertising model instead, creating privacy concerns.

Additionally, the 15% small business fee discount is determined based on the app's overall turnover and is not applied to individual creators within the app's marketplace. An app that generates over $1 million per year by providing services to creators who individually earn less than $1 million per year does not qualify for the discount.

Apple, often in conjunction with Google, engages in lobbying efforts in the United States and other countries to address these issues. "ACT | The App Association", pitched as an association of independent small business app developers, is at least 50% funded by Apple, and does not list its claimed 2,000 members.<ref>{{Cite web |date=1 Oct 2021 |title=Not a class ACT: the so-called App Association is simply an Apple Association and does NOT represent app developers' interests in fair distribution terms |url=https://www.fosspatents.com/2021/10/not-class-act-so-called-app-association.html |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260211064011/http://www.fosspatents.com/2021/10/not-class-act-so-called-app-association.html |archive-date=11 Feb 2026|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=FOSS Patents}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=19 Sep 2022 |title=Vast majority of ACT {{!}} The App Association's funding comes from Apple, former employees tell Bloomberg: astroturfing against app developers' interests |url=https://www.fosspatents.com/2022/09/vast-majority-of-act-app-associations.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251114214715/http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/09/vast-majority-of-act-app-associations.html |archive-date=14 Nov 2025 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=FOSS Patents}}</ref> In March 2024, the United States Department of Justice, along with 16 state attorneys general, filed a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company "extracts more money from consumers, developers, content creators, artists, publishers, small businesses, and merchants, among others."<ref name="doj" /> The future of this lawsuit is unclear as of April 2025.

Despite criticism of Apple imposing its fee on transactions with small businesses and creators on platforms such as [[#Patreon|Patreon]] and [[#Facebook online events|Facebook]], on January 23, 2025, Apple announced the Advanced Commerce API. It "support[s] developers' evolving business models - such as extensive content catalogs, creator experiences, and subscriptions with optional add-ons."<ref>{{Cite web |date=23 Jan 2025 |title=Introducing the Advanced Commerce API |url=https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=yxy958ya |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251112045125/https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=yxy958ya |archive-date=12 Nov 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=Apple Developer}}</ref> While positioned as a way for such businesses to save development time and avoid ongoing costs by building on top of Apple's established payments platform, its use is necessary for these businesses to comply with the App Store guidelines, as seen in the cases outlined below. The feature requires submitting a description of the app's business model to Apple for approval. In this case, Apple is not acting as a platform for digital services but a gatekeeper of who is and is not allowed to conduct business in the digital market.

===Epic Games===
{{hatnote|See also: [[wikipedia:Epic Games v. Apple|Epic Games v. Apple]] and [[wikipedia:Epic Games v. Google|Epic Games v. Google]]}}

[[Epic Games, Inc.]] is a video game developer and publisher, known for games such as [[Fortnite]] and [[Unreal Tournament]], the [[Unreal Engine]], and the [[Epic Games Store]].

In 2018, Epic Games launched Fortnite on the iOS and Android platforms. The company made the unusual decision not to release the app on the [[Google Play Store]] - instead, it was made available as a standalone [[wikipedia:apk (file format)|Android app package]] file (.apk), which must be installed by following a series of manual steps.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Statt |first=Nick |date=3 Aug 2018 |title=Fortnite for Android will ditch Google Play Store for Epic’s website |url=https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortnite-android-version-bypass-google-play-store |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260222210941/https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortnite-android-version-bypass-google-play-store |archive-date=22 Feb 2026|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref> The app was also released on the [[Samsung]] [[Samsung Galaxy Store|Galaxy Store]]. Google offered Epic Games a $147 million deal to release Fortnite on the Play Store, which the company declined.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Adi |date=9 Nov 2023 |title=Google offered Epic $147 million to launch Fortnite on the Play Store |url=https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/8/23953262/google-epic-fortnite-play-store-investment-antitrust-trial |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251213004431/https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/8/23953262/google-epic-fortnite-play-store-investment-antitrust-trial |archive-date=13 Dec 2025|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref>

On 22 April 2020, Fortnite was finally released on the Play Store.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carpenter |first=Nicole |date=22 April 2020 |title=Fortnite available on the Google Play Store for the first time |url=https://www.polygon.com/2020/4/21/21229930/fortnite-available-on-google-play-android-mobile-devices |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251215224522/https://www.polygon.com/2020/4/21/21229930/fortnite-available-on-google-play-android-mobile-devices/ |archive-date=15 Dec 2025|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=Polygon}}</ref> In a statement, the company explained:

<blockquote>
After 18 months of operating Fortnite on Android outside of the Google Play Store, we've come to a basic realization: Google puts software downloadable outside of Google Play at a disadvantage, through technical and business measures such as scary, repetitive security pop-ups for downloaded and updated software, restrictive manufacturer and carrier agreements and dealings, Google public relations characterizing third party software sources as malware, and new efforts such as Google Play Protect to outright block software obtained outside the Google Play store.
</blockquote>

On 13 August 2020, Epic Games launched a campaign against both Apple and Google's app store business practices. The company released app updates on both platforms, introducing a method for purchasing V-Bucks, in-game currency, at a 20% discount by directly transacting with Epic Games, against the developer rules of both platforms. The platforms responded by removing the game from their storefronts. Epic Games then filed civil antitrust lawsuits against both companies in the Northern District of California.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Statt |first=Nick |date=14 Aug 2020 |title=Epic Games is suing Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367963/epic-fortnite-legal-complaint-apple-ios-app-store-removal-injunctive-relief |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251204063629/https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367963/epic-fortnite-legal-complaint-apple-ios-app-store-removal-injunctive-relief |archive-date=4 Dec 2025|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref> The campaign, branded "Free Fortnite," was later extended with lawsuits and complaints in Australia,<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 Nov 2020 |title=Epic Games extends its fight against Apple to Australia |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/freefortnite-australia-press-release |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]] |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251219044545/https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/freefortnite-australia-press-release |archive-date=19 Dec 2025}}</ref> the European Union,<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 Feb 2021 |title=Epic Game Files EU Antitrust Complaint Against Apple |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-apple |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251220055703/https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-apple |archive-date=20 Dec 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref> and the United Kingdom.<ref>{{Cite web |date=30 Mar 2021 |title=Epic Games files complaint to support CMA Apple investigation |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-complaint-to-support-cma-apple-investigation |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251220060134/https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-complaint-to-support-cma-apple-investigation |archive-date=20 Dec 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref>

On September 11, 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided the case. While the lawsuit against Apple failed on nine of the ten counts, Rogers ruled against Apple's use of "anti-steering" - its strategy of preventing users from being "steered" to a third-party storefront for payment processing - and placed a permanent injunction on this behavior.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brandon |first=Russell |date=11 Sep 2021 |title=Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchase, rules judge in Epic v. Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22662320/epic-apple-ruling-injunction-judge-court-app-store |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260105234225/https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22662320/epic-apple-ruling-injunction-judge-court-app-store |archive-date=5 Jan 2026|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref> Despite the case mostly failing, the discovery process provided significant insight into Apple's decision-making process regarding App Store policies, including decisions made in major app review disputes. In one case, executive Phil Schiller argued for reducing the fee by 30%.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gurman |first=Mark |date=4 May 2021 |title=Apple’s Schiller Floated Cutting App Store Fees a Decade Ago |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-03/apple-s-schiller-floated-cutting-app-store-fees-a-decade-ago |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20231224122049/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-03/apple-s-schiller-floated-cutting-app-store-fees-a-decade-ago |archive-date=24 Dec 2023|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[Bloomberg]]}}</ref>

Epic Games and Apple both appealed the decision. Thirty-five state attorneys-general, the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF), [[Microsoft]], among others, filed amicus briefs in support of Epic Games.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Peters |first=Jay |date=29 Jan 2022 |title=Epic largely lost to Apple, but 35 states are now backing its fight in a higher court |url=https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/28/22907106/epic-games-v-apple-amicus-briefs-states-eff-microsoft-appeal |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250723144138/https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/28/22907106/epic-games-v-apple-amicus-briefs-states-eff-microsoft-appeal |archive-date=23 Jul 2025|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref>

On 11 December 2023, the jury in the case against Google decided in favor of Epic Games on all 11 counts.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bensinger |first=Greg |last2=Scarcella |first2=Mike |date=13 Dec 2023 |title=Epic Games wins antitrust case against Google over Play app store |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/google-epic-games-face-off-app-antitrust-trial-nears-end-2023-12-11/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20240105051308/https://www.reuters.com/legal/google-epic-games-face-off-app-antitrust-trial-nears-end-2023-12-11/ |archive-date=5 Jan 2024|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=Reuters}}</ref>

On 1 May 2025, Rogers found that Apple wilfully chose not to comply with the 2021 injunction, commenting that it was a "gross miscalculation" that "this court would tolerate such insubordination."<ref>{{Cite web |last=Peters |first=Jay |date=1 May 2025 |title=A judge just blew up Apple’s control of the App Store |url=https://www.theverge.com/news/659246/apple-epic-app-store-judge-ruling-control |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260204174552/https://www.theverge.com/news/659246/apple-epic-app-store-judge-ruling-control |archive-date=4 Feb 2026|access-date=1 May 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref>

===Facebook online events===
In August 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Facebook introduced the ability for small businesses to accept an entrance fee for events. Previously, Facebook would only serve as a way to RSVP for an event; the organizer had to use a third-party event ticketing system to collect fees. The company pledged not to collect any fee on event sales "until 2023."<ref>{{Cite web |date=14 Aug 2020 |title=Paid Online Events for Small Business Recovery |url=https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/paid-online-events/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260126172140/https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/paid-online-events/ |archive-date=26 Jan 2026|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Meta]]}}</ref>

Apple, however, required the feature to use an in-app purchases system. This introduced Apple's 30% fee. Because this increased the cost for end users and was not a fee imposed by the event holders, it was initially displayed as a line item upon check out. Apple argued that this disclosure was "irrelevant."<ref name="facebook" /> In the end, Facebook was allowed display the fee, but ''without'' stating that it was an App Store fee. Apple's reluctance to have these fees transparently shown and identified in the course of the purchase is confusing if such fees considered necessary and fair.

===HEY===
HEY.com is a paid webmail provider launched in June 2020 by long-time software company [[wikipedia:37signals|37signals]], specializing in inbox organization tools.

After successfully launching the initial version of the app on the App Store, the company announced that an update was rejected due to a complaint about the business model. The app does not support in-app purchases; instead, users are expected to have an account with the service already. Apple did not like this arrangement and demanded that the company build an in-app subscription option. The company argued that it is being held to a different set of rules than apps such as [[Netflix, Inc.|Netflix]], whose app does not provide any way to purchase a subscription.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kastrenakes |first=Jacob |date=17 Jun 2020 |title=Hey.com exec says Apple is acting like ‘gangsters,’ rejecting App Store updates and demanding cut of sales |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21293419/hey-apple-rejection-ios-app-store-dhh-gangsters-antitrust |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251113194215/https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21293419/hey-apple-rejection-ios-app-store-dhh-gangsters-antitrust |archive-date=13 Nov 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref> After a suggestion from Apple executive Phil Schiller in the media, HEY introduced a 14-day free trial mode, which was approved.<ref>{{cite web |first=Jason |last=Fried |website=Hey |title=Apple, HEY, and the Path Forward |url=https://www.hey.com/apple/path/ |url-status=live |date=22 Jun 2020 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251114230238/https://www.hey.com/apple/path/ |archive-date=2025-11-14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Matthew |last=Panzarino |website=TechCrunch |title=Interview: Apple’s Schiller says position on Hey app is unchanged and no rules changes are imminent |url=https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-says-position-on-hey-app-is-unchanged-and-no-rules-changes-are-imminent/ |url-status=live |date=18 Jun 2020 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251113115149/https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-says-position-on-hey-app-is-unchanged-and-no-rules-changes-are-imminent/ |archive-date=2025-11-13}}</ref>

===Patreon===
In August 2024, [[Patreon]] announced a change in arrangement with Apple for its App Store app. From November 2024, subscriptions started from the iOS app would be required to use the in-app purchase system, bypassing Patreon's own long-standing payment practices.<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 Aug 2024 |title=Apple’s requirements are about to hit creators and fans on Patreon. Here’s what you need to know. |url=https://news.patreon.com/articles/understanding-apple-requirements-for-patreon |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251215213556/https://news.patreon.com/articles/understanding-apple-requirements-for-patreon |archive-date=15 Dec 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Patreon]]}}</ref><ref name="patreon" /> This change does not affect the Android app.

By forcing Patreon out of the payments pipeline, specific payment models are no longer available to users of Patreon's iOS app. Creators who rely on the "per-creation" payment model, as opposed to the standard "per-month", can no longer be subscribed to from the app. The app is also unable to support the "first-of-the-month" model, where payments from all subscribers are collected on the first day of the month, rather than every 30 days, since each member's subscription day varies. The price must also be rounded to a price tier supported by Apple.

Patreon allows creators to choose between increasing their prices by 30% in the iOS app or maintaining the same prices, forfeiting 30% to Apple. Creators frequently remind potential supporters not to use the Patreon iOS app, adding extra inconvenience to those wanting to support the work of small creators.

<gallery mode="packed" heights="400px">
File:Patreon iOS app pricing options - fee on top.png|"Maintain earnings and cover Apple's fee by increasing prices in the iOS app" (Recommended)
File:Patreon iOS app pricing options - absorb fee.png|"Keep prices in the iOS app the same and cover Apple's fee yourself."
</gallery>

A similar case occurred with the app Fanhouse in 2021.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@jasminericegirl |date=9 Jun 2021 |title=#fuckapple, a thread I cofounded @fanhouseapp 8 months ago to empower creators to monetize their content. We pay creators 90% of earnings. Now, Apple is threatening to remove Fanhouse from the app store unless we give them 30% of creator earnings. This is theft and exploitation. |url=https://x.com/jasminericegirl/status/1402691047940100100 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708194039/https://x.com/jasminericegirl/status/1402691047940100100 |archive-date=8 Jul 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref>

===Twitter===
In August 2021, [[Twitter]] introduced a feature named Super Follows (now Subscriptions), in which users can pay a subscription fee to access more of a creator's content. For each user who enables Subscriptions, Twitter must submit a new in-app purchase SKU to the App Store, which will become available with the next update to the app.<ref>{{Cite web |last=@wongmjane |date=2 Sep 2021 |title=Each Super Follow is an In-App Purchase on the App Store, but because there are too many IAPs for the Twitter app, the App Store only shows 10 instead of the full list |url=https://x.com/wongmjane/status/1433372120080261120 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708194042/https://x.com/wongmjane/status/1433372120080261120 |archive-date=8 Jul 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref> This, of course, is subject to the 30% fee. At the time of writing in January 2025, viewing the App Store listing reveals Elon Musk's $4.00 subscription as the fourth most popular IAP item.

== Data Collection ==
Apple added a new discovery feature in the App Store coming with iOS 27 that would allow users to see personalised results based on their activity<ref>{{Cite news |last=Charlton |first=Harley |date=June 15, 2026 |title=Apple Adds Personalized Recommendations and New Marketing Tools to the App Store |url=https://www.macrumors.com/2026/06/15/app-store-gains-personalized-recommendations/ |url-status=live |work=[[MacRumours]]}}</ref>, A group of security researchers known as Mysk say that Apple logs "every tap" in the App Store that a user inputs in order to put together the recommendations<ref>{{Cite web |title= |url=https://x.com/mysk_co/status/2064401062224879888?s=20}}</ref>

==Notarization==
Since 2015, Apple has required all Mac apps to be "notarized." This is a preliminary, automated malware check, which, upon passing, provides a notary certificate that gets "stapled" to the app. Apple's explanation:

<blockquote>
Notarization of macOS software is not App Review. The Apple notary service is an automated system that scans your software for malicious content, checks for code-signing issues, and returns the results to you quickly. If there are no issues, the notary service generates a ticket for you to staple to your software; the notary service also publishes that ticket online where Gatekeeper can find it.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Notarizing macOS software before distribution |url=https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing-macos-software-before-distribution |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260126224658/https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/notarizing-macos-software-before-distribution |archive-date=26 Jan 2026|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=Apple Developer}}</ref>
</blockquote>

Whether this approach is actually better than that used by [[Microsoft_Windows|Windows]] antivirus, which only detects new malware samples when they are already on a user's computer, is a separate topic.

To comply with the DMA's regulations on app marketplaces, Apple created a new channel for releasing apps outside of the iOS App Store. Apps go through a notarization process. But the process is definitely ''not'' notarization. The name is intentionally being abused, by contrast to notarization on macOS, to make you believe it is something other than the existing App Review system. Despite the pain some developers and users have with it, notarization on macOS has always been considered a net positive. It made sense to take advantage of its reputation for the entirely different "notarization" on iOS.

See for yourself - view the [https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ App Review Guidelines] and tick "Show Notarization Review Guidelines Only". While this eliminates most rules, a significant number of them remain in place. These apps are still reviewed and tested by the App Review team, must have a complete product listing in App Store Connect, and can be outright rejected - all in the same way as an App Store app.

By contrast, all that is required for notarization on macOS is for your app not to be malware. You submit it to an automated system that approves it within minutes. '''You don't need to convince Apple that your app is worthy of existing on their platform.'''

The purpose of macOS notarization is that Apple maintains a record of all binaries intended for wide distribution on macOS, allowing it to review them both in advance and regularly for known malware/common malware patterns. If a malware app manages to get through, when Apple initially finds out, they can go back into the notary records and find every sample of that malware to analyze and block. This is a purely technical process, managed by skilled security researchers. At the same time, iOS app review and "notarization" are business processes managed by workers who have been given a checklist of violations to look for.

Apple is retaining complete control over what's allowed to run on iOS. On macOS, you can choose to run apps that have not been notarized (even though the process to bypass the warning is intentionally difficult). On iOS, you never get even that option. What Apple created is the App Store, but with more steps. It is still available on the App Store, but it is hidden so that it can only be installed through the third-party store it's tied to.

*Mysk: "iOS should enable alternative marketplaces to add their own links when users share their apps. Links still point to the App Store, and if the app is not available there, this happens."<ref>{{Cite web |last=@mysk_co |date=28 Jun 2024 |title=iOS should enable alternative marketplaces to add their own links when users share their apps. Links still point to the App Store and if the app is not available there, this happens: |url=https://x.com/mysk_co/status/1806638308455256242 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250708194049/https://x.com/mysk_co/status/1806638308455256242 |archive-date=8 Jul 2025|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[X]]}}</ref>

==JIT==
[[wikipedia:Safari_(web_browser)|Safari]] is allowed to use [[wikipedia:Just-in-time compilation|JIT]] to compile code from any site, just like Apple's [https://apps.apple.com/app/swift-playgrounds/id908519492 Playgrounds] app on iPad. Playgrounds bundle Apple's [[wikipedia:Swift (programming language)|Swift]] compiler and share back-end code with the version of Playgrounds found in [[wikipedia:Xcode|Xcode]].

Third-party apps, such as Pythonista (a [[wikipedia:Python_(programming_language)|Python]] [[wikipedia:Integrated_development_environment|IDE]]), emulators like Delta and [[wikipedia:UTM_(software)|UTM]], and [[wikipedia:Terminal_emulator|terminal]] environments like iSH, are not allowed to use JIT; instead, they must [[wikipedia:Interpreter_(computing)|interpret]] code, which results in severe performance degradation and increased computational expense, potentially draining more battery.

An example of apps being heavily affected by this restriction is UTM. UTM is a port of [[wikipedia:QEMU|QEMU]] for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS, allowing users to create [[wikipedia:Virtual_machine|VMs]] that can run various operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows. The iPhone's hardware is capable enough to emulate various modern OSes at full speed. Still, due to Apple's JIT limitation, the team behind UTM had to create UTM SE (slow edition), which doesn't require JIT but is nowhere near as fast as UTM with JIT, only being capable of running MS-DOS and derivatives at acceptable speeds. While methods that enable JIT for apps other than Safari and Playgrounds exist (some are currently working on iOS 18.5, like [https://apps.apple.com/us/app/stikdebug/id6744045754 StikDebug]), Apple does not allow the use of JIT in notarized apps, meaning that apps that support JIT will have to be [[Sideloading|sideloaded]], which comes with its own set of restrictions.

In the EU, Apple permitted web browsers to use rendering and [[JavaScript]] [[wikipedia:Browser_engine|engines]] other than the built-in with Apple WebKit/JavaScriptCore, with the option for JS engines to use JIT. The browser still needs to be approved by Apple for an entitlement and must then work within the APIs provided by Apple. However, as of January 2025, no browsers using engines different from the built-in ones have been released, primarily due to arbitrarily imposed restrictions intended to discourage the use and development of third-party engines.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Mozilla says Apple’s new browser rules are ‘as painful as possible’ for Firefox |url=https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260220155551/https://www.theverge.com/2024/1/26/24052067/mozilla-apple-ios-browser-rules-firefox |archive-date=20 Feb 2026|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=The Verge}}</ref>

However, Apple still does not allow different engines outside of the EU, with or without JIT support.<ref>{{Cite web |title=App Review Guidelines |url=https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.5.6 |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260128202153/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ |archive-date=28 Jan 2026|access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=Apple Developer}}</ref>

==In-app browsers==
When apps want to display web content without opening the standalone Safari browser, app developers can use Apple’s [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/webkit/ WebKit] APIs, such as WKWebView. However, due to Apple’s [https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/app-sandbox application sandboxing] and WebKit’s data-isolation model, web content loaded inside one app does not have access to Safari’s [[Web cookie|cookies]], browsing history, saved sessions, or extensions, nor to data from other apps’ embedded web views. Each app’s embedded browser operates with its own isolated website data store.

As a result, web pages opened inside embedded browsers, such as those used in apps like Facebook, do not appear in Safari’s browsing history, and there is typically no persistent, user-accessible history within the app itself. Users may also be asked to sign in to the same services (for example, during OAuth login flows like Google) because cookies and session data are not shared with Safari. Additionally, Safari extensions, including content blockers, dark-mode tools, and other privacy or accessibility extensions, do not function inside embedded web views.

Apple states App Sandboxing "provides protection to system resources and user data by limiting your app’s access to resources requested through entitlements."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-12 |title=App Sandbox {{!}} Apple Developer Documentation |url=https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/app-sandbox |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20260127234927/https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/app-sandbox |archive-date=2026-01-27 |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=Apple Developer}}</ref> However, developers have voiced frustration with how WebKit is sandboxed which can result in degraded user experiences, such as with repeated OAuth login flows between apps.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-12 |title=Impact of iOS 11 no longer providing shared cookies between Safari, Safari View Controller instances |url=https://github.com/openid/AppAuth-iOS/issues/120 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=GitHub |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251113172345/https://github.com/openid/AppAuth-iOS/issues/120 |archive-date=13 Nov 2025}}</ref> Some developers have found workarounds for sharing information with the native Safari app, but it is unknown whether these methods still function in modern versions Apple's various operating systems.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Storey |first=Leon |date=2025-01-12 |title=Does WKWebView uses cookies from Safari? |url=https://stackoverflow.com/a/41486576 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20260218231045/https://stackoverflow.com/questions/40148060/does-wkwebview-uses-cookies-from-safari |archive-date=2026-02-18 |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=StackOverflow}}</ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[https://theapplewiki.com/wiki/Eligibility Eligibility]
*Posts written by the author of this article:
**[https://adamdemasi.com/2024/04/19/app-marketplace-experience.html The iOS 17.4 app marketplace flow is a disaster] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20251112051617/https://adamdemasi.com/2024/04/19/app-marketplace-experience.html Archived] 2025-11-12)
**[https://adamdemasi.com/2024/04/20/ios-eligibility.html How I tricked iOS into giving me EU DMA features] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20260112053403/https://adamdemasi.com/2024/04/20/ios-eligibility.html Archived] 2026-01-12)
**[https://adamdemasi.com/2024/04/23/ios-eligibility-features.html Features controlled by iOS 17.4's eligibility system] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20260112053400/https://adamdemasi.com/2024/04/23/ios-eligibility-features.html Archived] 2026-01-12)

[[Category:{{PAGENAME}}]]

Bumpgate

2026-03-30T17:54:53Z

SyrianClippy: Added wii defects to the page

{{IncidentCargo
|Company=AMD, Nvidia
|StartDate=2006
|EndDate=2010
|Status=Resolved
|ProductLine=
|Product=
|ArticleType=
|Type=Poor Quality
|Description=
}}
[[File:Underfilled Die.png|alt=The image shows a diagram of a computer processor. On the bottom, there is a green rectangle labeled "substrate". On top of the substrate, there is a black rectangle labeled "chip", which refers to the die. Between the die and the substrate, there are small silver bumps equally spaced apart, encased within a white "filling". The bumps are the solder bumps connecting the die to the substrate, and the white filling is the underfill- meant to strengthen the solder bumps.|thumb|A diagram of a computer processor. When the underfill becomes too soft at any point in the processor's normal operating temperatures, the solder bumps under the die ("chip") can crack, disconnecting the die from the substrate. This leads to the processor failing, and in turn, leads to a critical system failure for the device it's in.]]
'''Bumpgate''' (also known as '''Nvidiagate''') was a scandal where [[Nvidia]] and ATI Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) made from 2005-2010 were prone to high failure rates because of a design flaw that caused cracked solder bumps under the die.<ref name=":0" />

Despite the name "Nvidiagate", this defect was widespread in the industry. It impacted many Nvidia GPUs (manufactured 2006-2010), but also affected ATI GPUs (2006-2008). Among retro console enthusiasts, the defect is best known to have caused the high failure rate of the ATI Xenos GPUs in [[Microsoft]]'s early [[Xbox]] 360 models<ref name=":3" /> (2005-May 2008) and the Nvidia-based RSX GPUs in [[Sony]]'s early [[PlayStation#PlayStation_3_Incidents|PlayStation 3]] models (2006-Fall 2008).<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=RIP Felix |first= |date=23 Dec 2022 |title=A PS3 Story: The Yellow Light of Death |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za7WTNwAX0c |url-status=live |access-date=2 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref>, Nintendo Wii consoles produced before 2008 are also affected by this issue but only if WiiConnect24 was active in standby mode, as this caused the Scarlet ARM CPU in the SoC to get hot therefore damaging the solder bumps when the fan is not on , Also Retro computer enthusiasts may also know of the defect from certain models of Dell and [[HP Inc.|HP-Compaq]] laptops (2005-2010), as well as certain [[Apple]] Macbook Pros (May 2007-September 2008).<ref name=":16">{{Cite web |title=Affected Models |url=https://www.nvidiasettlement.com/affectedmodels.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001080616/http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/affectedmodels.html |archive-date=1 Oct 2010 |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=The NVIDIA GPU Litigation}}</ref>

==Background==

===Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) Faults===
From approximately 2005-2010, GPU manufacturers Nvidia and ATI developed some GPUs that had a serious design flaw. This flaw led to failures in many of their GPUs during that time period, and Nvidia even saw a class action lawsuit from it. In order to understand what truly happened during this controversy, though, it's important to understand what exactly led to the faults.

These manufacturers had engineered GPUs that electrically connected the silicon chip (die) to the substrate (the "green square part") using high-lead solder bumps. High-lead solder bumps were chosen in order to fit the power delivery specifications that these GPUs needed; high-lead bumps can deliver more current.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Williams |first=Rob |date=29 Sep 2008 |title=NVIDIA at a Disadvantage Due to their Choice of Solder? |url=https://techgage.com/news/nvidia_at_a_disadvantage_due_to_their_choice_of_solder/ |url-status=live |access-date=1 Jun 2025 |website=Techgage}}</ref> To give these solder bumps more strength (especially when operating at high temperatures), it's standard to use an epoxy with silica filler known as underfill. Underfill needs to fit certain specifications, depending on how hot the processor it's used on is expected to get. If it's too hard, the underfill will crack the die. If it's too soft, the bumps will crack because the underfill isn't supportive enough. It also needs to still fit within the right specifications at both high and low temperatures.

In 2006, IBM and Amkor published a study that explained that use of a low Tg underfill was not acceptable with high-lead solder bumps, and high Tg would be necessary to avoid defects.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ray |first=S. |last2=Kiyono |first2=S. |last3=Waite |first3=K. |last4=Nicholls |first4=L. |date=2006 |title=Qualification of low-K 90nm Technology Die with Pb-free Bumps on a Build-up Laminate Package (PBGA) with Pb-free Assembly Processes |journal=56th Electronic Components and Technology Conference |pages=139-144 |via=IEEE}}</ref> Therefore, because Nvidia and ATI chose to use high-lead solder bumps, they needed a high Tg underfill. However, this study was not out at the time that GPUs from 2005 were made, and the companies ended up using low Tg underfill in these processors.

This low Tg underfill would become too soft at high, but normal operating temperatures for these GPUs. When the processor went through normal thermal changes, the solder bumps would soften under heat and harden as they cooled.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Demerjian |first=Charlie |date=1 Sep 2008 |title=Why Nvidia's chips are defective |url=https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1004378/why-nvidia-chips-defective |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090520152257/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1004378/why-nvidia-chips-defective |archive-date=20 May 2009 |access-date=1 Jun 2025 |website=The Inquirer}}</ref> This would happen over and over again until they cracked under the thermal stress. When enough solder bumps cracked, it would cause a failure in the unit, hence the term "Bumpgate".

==Companies involved and responses==
Bumpgate was a worldwide, almost industry-wide issue that impacted multiple GPUs from Nvidia and ATI. Therefore, it's unclear what company was the most responsible for the incident. Building a GPU is a specialized process that requires it to go through multiple partner companies before ultimately ending up with the company that sells the unit or the system it's contained in (i.e., Microsoft, Sony, Nvidia, etc.). However, it is still important to note the response of each of the companies that were the public faces involved in this incident.

====Microsoft's Response - The "Red Ring of Death"====
[[File:GPU early.jpg|alt=An image of a 90 nanometer graphics processing unit from a Microsoft Xbox 360. The die is in the center of the green square, and the eDRAM is located to the left of it. The die has dark greenish low Tg underfill under it, indicating that it is defective.|thumb|200x200px|A ''defective'' 90nm "Xenos" GPU from an '''early''' Xbox 360 (Xenon revision). Note the large die in the center of the chip, and the dark greenish underfill. The color of the underfill is one way to tell if the chip has the low Tg underfill.]]<blockquote>''"The breakthrough came when we understood that the connections that were being broken were not located on the motherboard, but they were actually located inside the components."''

- Leo Del Castillo, member of Xbox's hardware engineering group; ''Power On: The Story of Xbox (2021)''<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Xbox |date=13 Dec 2021 |title=Power On: The Story of Xbox {{!}} Chapter 5: The Red Ring of Death |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2d6IMBS8oY |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.org/details/power-on-the-story-of-xbox/The+Story+of+the+Xbox+-+Chapter+5/Power+On+-+The+Story+of+Xbox+-+Chapter+5+-+The+Red+Ring+of+Death.mp4 |archive-date=13 Dec 2021 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref></blockquote>In November 2005, Microsoft released the Xbox 360, a video game console equipped with an ATI Xenos GPU. According to leaked internal Microsoft documents from the time, 1.2 million units were shipped out to consumers by November 30th, 2005. 3% of customers had some form of technical issue with their systems. Out of that 3%, 19% reported three flashing red rings, and 24% reported the console freezing.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=RIP Felix |date=15 Jan 2024 |title=A 360 Story - The RED Ring of Death & the 7th Generation Console War |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qKtS_uxdcU |url-status=live |access-date=2 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> This is notable because this indicates that shortly after launch, 43% of consumers had consoles showing symptoms of the now-infamous "Red Ring of Death", a term used universally among consumers the describe the early Xbox 360's common hardware fault confirmed to be caused by Bumpgate.<ref name=":3" /> 

"Three flashing red rings" on the Xbox 360 simply means "core digital error"- or, a general hardware failure. This error can be triggered by a variety of issues, including GPU failure. A Bumpgate-related malfunction would require multiple power cycles to cause a failure in the solder bumps, but it is not uncommon for consoles to see that during testing before being shipped. It is possible that Bumpgate-affected Xbox 360s with GPU failures were part or even all 43% of those defective consoles, but there is no way to be certain. At initial launch, 200,000 non-functional Xbox 360s were in what Microsoft termed "the bonepile"- systems that they planned to repair and ship out later. Approximately 56% of systems worked on the first attempt after manufacture, and that figure improved to 71% after component reworks. At the peak of the "Red Ring of Death" crisis, some consumers discovered that reflowing the motherboard- a process similar to what Microsoft may have done to improve their yield of working Xbox 360s- they could restore functionality to their console, but this was typically for a limited period that was inconsistent between systems.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:GPU late.jpg|alt=An image of a 65 nanometer graphics processing unit from a Microsoft Xbox 360. The die is in the center of the green square, and the eDRAM is located to the left of it. The die has a light, whitish underfill- indicating that it is not one of the defective units.|thumb|204x204px|A ''non-defective'' 65nm "Xenos" GPU from a later revision of Xbox 360 (Jasper V2 on "Kronos 1" package). Note the smaller die and the light, whitish underfill.]]
At the height of the Bumpgate-related defect, approximately 600,000 to 1,000,000 Xbox 360s had the "Red Ring of Death". For several months, Microsoft charged consumers to repair affected consoles. However, in 2007, Microsoft extended the warranty for Xbox 360 consoles displaying an E74 error (an on-screen error also associated with "Red Ring of Death") from one year to three years from the date of purchase. This extension allowed most impacted consumers to get their consoles refurbished at no additional cost. In addition, Microsoft refunded any consumers who had previously paid for repairs related to this issue.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moore |first=Peter |date=2007 |title=Open Letter From Peter Moore |url=https://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023004948/http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |archive-date=23 Oct 2007 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=Xbox}}</ref> By mid-2008, the cause was confirmed to be an issue "within the components"- the low Tg underfill. After this point, ATI and Microsoft completely fixed this issue in Xbox 360s.

Microsoft appears to have taken this approach to protect the Xbox brand. The Xbox 360 was only the company's second home console, and the original Xbox hadn't performed as well as anticipated. Microsoft confirmed this in Chapter 5 of their 2021 documentary, ''Power On: The Story of Xbox''.<ref name=":3" />

====Sony's Response - The "Yellow Light of Death"====
<blockquote>''"We entirely refute the suggestion that PS3 consoles have an inherent defect or other design issue which is akin to any warranty issue experienced by another console manufacturer. [...] We think it is highly unfair to suggest that from an installed base of 2.5 million that the numbers you mention somehow are evidence of a 'manufacturing defect'..."''

- Ray Maguire, managing director and senior vice president of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe in 2009; in a letter responding to a BBC Watchdog segment covering the "Yellow Light of Death".<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=BBC |date=18 Sep 2009 |title=Sony rebuts BBC PlayStation claim |url=https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8263063.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250219154020/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8263063.stm |archive-date=19 Feb 2025 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=BBC NEWS}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite web |last=Martin |first=Matt |date=17 Sep 2009 |title=Sony tackles BBC over 'PS3 failure' report |url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/sony-tackles-bbc-over-ps3-failure-report |url-status=live |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=Gamesindustry.biz}}</ref></blockquote>In November 2006, Sony released the PlayStation 3. Similar to the Xbox 360, the early models of PlayStation 3 had what consumers believe to be a Bumpgate-related defect with its Nvidia-based Reality Synthesizer (RSX) GPU. Many consumers who had purchased early "phat" models with a 90nm GPU experienced critical system failures. PlayStation 3 systems that were exhibiting the issue may freeze suddenly during gameplay and shut off. However, all users affected would find that when attempting to turn their PlayStation 3 back on, the LED power indicator would momentarily turn green, then the system would beep three times while very briefly flashing to a yellow light, then it would continuously blink red without booting the system. This failure was coined by consumers as the "Yellow Light of Death".

A 2009 segment by BBC Watchdog covered the "Yellow Light of Death".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=HelpForPS3 (Reuploader) |last2=BBC |date=17 Dec 2009 |title=Sony PS3 Yellow Light of Death - BBC |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ef8bDQktI |url-status=live |access-date=3 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> The presenters stated that when viewers contacted Sony about their console malfunctioning, the company simply stated that the issue could have resulted from a variety of possible failures, and pinpointing the cause would require disassembly of the affected system to analyze error codes. This is true; the LED indicators only indicate a general hardware failure, and a proper diagnosis can only be made after checking the PS3's System Controller (Syscon) and checking for error codes.

During the BBC Watchdog segment, one of the interviewees explained that consumers whose systems were outside of the one year warranty period would have to pay £128 (~$173) for a repair, and Sony would only provide customers with a standard three-month post-repair warranty. If the system failed again after that point, they would have to pay out of pocket for another repair. By August 2008, Sony had begun manufacturing consoles with the 65nm RSX<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=R. |date=26 Jun 2008 |title=PS3 graphics chip going 65nm this Fall |url=https://www.engadget.com/2008-06-26-ps3-graphics-chip-going-65nm-this-fall.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210924101930/https://www.engadget.com/2008-06-26-ps3-graphics-chip-going-65nm-this-fall.html |archive-date=24 Sep 2021 |access-date=3 Jun 2025 |website=Engadget}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=NVIDIA Playstation 3 GPU 65nm Specs |url=https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-3-gpu-65nm.c1682 |url-status=live |access-date=3 Jun 2025 |website=TechPowerUp GPU Database}}</ref>, which enthusiasts confirmed does not have the theoretically Bumpgate-related fault.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":14">{{Cite web |last=RIP Felix |date=9 Jun 2025 |title=A PS3 Story 2: Defending BumpGate Theory |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjtRjGPLhI |url-status=live |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> In addition, Sony has successfully repaired consoles by transplanting non-defective GPUs (the 65nm or 40nm RSX) into systems that were originally manufactured with a defective 90nm RSX.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web |last=Icferrum |date=2 Feb 2020 |title=Frankenstein PHAT PS3: CECHA with 40nm RSX |url=https://www.psx-place.com/threads/frankenstein-phat-ps3-cecha-with-40nm-rsx.28069/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=PSX-Place}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mystic |date=9 Apr 2025 |title=Sony's PS3 Upgrade They Never Told You About: Official 40nm RSX Frankenstein Console From Sony |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2abnrOADoCc |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> However, consoles repaired prior to Sony implementing this repair policy were highly likely to fail again. In addition, the console would also be reset during the repair, resulting in the loss of any data that was not backed up prior to the failure (i.e., game saves).<ref name=":1" />

Sony never issued a recall or extended warranty for affected systems; all repair costs were paid by consumers, unless the system failed during the standard one-year warranty period. However, the PS3's fan table accommodated better for the temperature changes that led to failures than the Xbox 360 did, so it took longer for the defect to manifest. Depending on how frequently the console was used, some consumers would not encounter the defect until a few years into owning their console.

When the 65nm RSX was released in Fall 2008,<ref name=":6" /> the defect that seems to have caused the "Yellow Light of Death" was resolved for the late "phat" PS3 models. PS3 "slim" models and newer revisions were completely unaffected. The timing of this led some consumers<ref name=":4" /> to suspect that Sony had known about the defect and quietly fixed it. This was at the same time that Microsoft was addressing the problems with the Xbox 360, as well as while Nvidia was being confronted for their Bumpgate defect in some of their GPUs (particularly, the G84 and G86).

Notably, the RSX is a customized version of Nvidia's 256MB GeForce 7800 GTX.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shimpi |first=Anand |last2=Wilson |first2=Derek |date=24 Jun 2005 |title=Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PS3 - A Hardware Discussion |url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/1719/9 |url-status=live |access-date=16 Jun 2025 |website=AnandTech}}</ref> The GeForce 7 series does have some defective units with low-Tg underfill, but it is unclear if the 7800 GTX is among them. There are no known sources of consumer complaints about the 7800 GTX, and none of the notebook laptops covered by the Nvidia class action lawsuit settlement<ref name=":16" /> seem to have that GPU or a mobile version of it. However, this does not necessarily indicate that there was no defect with the 90nm RSX, that Sony wasn't aware that it was defective, or that the 90nm RSX wasn't at all affected by Bumpgate. Console repair and modding enthusiasts have performed extensive research<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":18">{{Cite web |last=Derf |last2=Nadaman |last3=Alex3107 |display-authors=2 |date=14 Jun 2025 |title=PlayStation 3 - Buying Guide |url=https://consolemods.org/wiki/PS3:Buying_Guide#PlayStation_3_%22Fat/Phat%22_(2006-2009) |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=ConsoleMods Wiki}}</ref> and testing<ref name=":14" /> strongly supports the hypothesis that the "Yellow Light of Death" was caused by Bumpgate, and the only way to permanently repair an affected system is to replace the 90nm RSX with a working non-defective unit.

As of 2025, Sony has never made an official statement confirming that the "Yellow Light of Death" was a widespread issue in early PlayStation 3 consoles, nor have they definitively explained that it was linked to Bumpgate.
====Dell's and HP (HP-Compaq)'s Responses - BIOS Updates and Free Repairs====
There were a variety of Dell and HP-Compaq notebook laptops that were affected by the Bumpgate defect, as evidenced by the Nvidia class action lawsuit.<ref name=":16" /> Upon being informed of the defect by Nvidia in 2008, both companies distributed BIOS updates for affected systems with Nvidia GPUs that according to The Inquirer, "[ran] the fan all the time".<ref name=":5" /> The purpose of this was to attempt to prevent the problem from occurring so that consumers wouldn't have to get their systems repaired. However, both companies also provided free repairs for systems already exhibiting symptoms of a failing GPU, such as no video output to the monitor or the computer failing to boot. It's implied in an SEC report that Nvidia filed in 2008 that the companies were compensated for providing this service.<ref name=":10" />

Both Dell and HP-Compaq also offered varying limited warranties after impacted devices were repaired. HP-Compaq offered a limited warranty for 24 months (two years) after the start of customers' original limited warranty or 90 days (approximately three months) after the affected notebook was repaired- whichever was later.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=HP |date=2008 |title=HP Pavilion dv2000/dv6000/dv9000 and Compaq Presario v3000/v6000 Series Notebook PCs - HP Limited Warranty Service Enhancement |url=https://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&docname=c01087277 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080710172852/http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&docname=c01087277 |archive-date=10 Jul 2008 |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=HP Customer Care}}</ref> Dell extended limited warranties for systems with these issues for 12 months (one year) from the original purchase date, with a maximum of up to 60 months (five years). In addition, they even offered this to customers whose original warranties already expired- making the new warranty valid from the date the original warranty expired.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Menchaca |first=Lionel |date=18 Aug 2008 |title=NVIDIA GPU Update: Dell to Offer Limited Warranty Enhancement to All Affected Customers Worldwide |url=https://en.community.dell.com/blogs/direct2dell/archive/2008/08/18/nvidia-gpu-update-dell-to-offer-warranty-enhancement-to-all-affected-customers-worldwide.aspx |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219131311/http://en.community.dell.com/blogs/direct2dell/archive/2008/08/18/nvidia-gpu-update-dell-to-offer-warranty-enhancement-to-all-affected-customers-worldwide.aspx |archive-date=19 Dec 2008 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=Direct2Dell}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite web |last=Meyer |first=David |date=19 Aug 2008 |title=Dell extends warranties after GPU fault |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/dell-extends-warranties-after-gpu-fault/ |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=ZDNet}}</ref>
====Apple's Response - Macbook Pro, May 2007 - September 2008====
In May 2007, Apple released a version of the aluminum Macbook Pro that used the Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT GPU, and manufactured the computers with this GPU until September 2008. They stopped manufacturing them with this GPU because they discovered it was one of the models affected by Bumpgate. Unlike the issues with the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 where the system wouldn't even boot, consumers ran into distorted video or no video output on their devices. Nvidia had assured Apple that the graphics processors were not defective, so Apple initially ignored reports expressing that possibility.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |last=Foresman |first=Chris |date=10 Oct 2008 |title=Apple: NVIDIA chips to blame for MacBook Pro video problems |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/10/apple-nvidia-chips-to-blame-for-macbook-pro-video-problems/ |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Buchanan |first=Matt |date=10 Oct 2008 |title=Apple Confirms Failing Nvidia Graphics Cards in MacBook Pros, Offers Free Repairs and Refunds |url=https://gizmodo.com/apple-confirms-failing-nvidia-graphics-cards-in-macbook-5061605 |url-status=live |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=Gizmodo}}</ref> However, after doing their own investigation, Apple had found that the processors actually were defective. Because of this, Apple offered extended repair coverage adding up to four years from the date of original purchase, and refunded customers who already paid to repair systems affected by this defect.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Apple Support |date=18 Nov 2014 |title=MacBook Pro: Distorted video or no video issues |url=https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203254 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141202230527/http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203254 |archive-date=2 Dec 2014 |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=Apple}}</ref>

====Nvidia's Response - Inquirer Accusations and SEC Report====
[[File:Nvidia G80, G84 and G86 size comparison.jpg|alt=Three GPU dies are lined up in a row, from largest to smallest, left to right: the Nvidia G80, then the G84, then the G86. The internals of the dies are visible.|thumb|Image of the Nvidia G80, G84, and G86's dies (left-to-right). The G84 and the G86 GPUs are known to have been impacted by the Bumpgate defect.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Demerjian |first=Charlie |date=9 Jul 2008 |title=All Nvidia G84 and G86s are bad |url=https://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/09/nvidia-g84-g86-bad |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080710121746/http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/09/nvidia-g84-g86-bad |archive-date=10 Jul 2008 |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=The Inquirer}}</ref>]]
''See also: Lawsuit(s)''<blockquote>''[As of July 2, 2008, all] newly manufactured products and all products currently shipping in volume have a different and more robust material set. [...] We intend to fully support our customers in their repair and replacement of these impacted MCP and GPU products that fail.''

- Marvin Burkett, Nvidia Chief Financial Officer, Form 8-K report to SEC.<ref name=":10">{{Cite web |last=Burkett |first=Marvin |last2=United States Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2 Jul 2008 |title=Form 8-K |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119312508145974/d8k.htm |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=SEC}}</ref></blockquote>Nvidia processors were not the only ones affected by the Bumpgate defect (i.e., the Xbox 360's ATI Xenos GPU), but they seem to have been the most heavily impacted. There were a wide variety of Nvidia graphics processors across multiple architectures that had this defect, but according to the class action lawsuit settlement,<ref name=":16" /> the earliest confirmed system with the defect appears to have been manufactured in December 2005, and the latest systems were manufactured in late February 2010.

The defects were being noticed broadly amongst consumers around July 2008, particularly when ''The Inquirer'' published reports that drew attention to the problems.<ref name=":5" /> Charlie Demerjian, a writer for ''The Inquirer'' at the time, firmly presented claims and evidence that every G84 and G86 GPU was defective- including desktop GPUs- even accusing Nvidia of attempting to cover up the problems.

On July 2nd, 2008- a few days before Demerjian's article was published- Nvidia filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).<ref name=":10" /> The report explained that the corporation would pay a $150-200 million one-time charge to cover customer warranties, repairs, returns, replacements, and other notable expenses caused by poor packaging material in some of their media and communications processors (MCPs) and GPUs exclusively used in laptops. This report also stated that all of their newly manufactured products from that point forward would have a more suitable material set.

On the same day, EE Times published an article where Nvidia explained more about what the cause of the problem was.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaPedus |first=Mark |date=2 Jul 2008 |title=Nvidia takes charge for bad chips, but who is to blame? |url=https://eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4105543/Nvidia-takes-charge-for-bad-chips-but-who-is-to-blame- |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117035658/http://eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4105543/Nvidia-takes-charge-for-bad-chips-but-who-is-to-blame- |archive-date=17 Nov 2012 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=EE Times}}</ref> Nvidia had stated in an email that one of their many packaging partners, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC), was responsible. However, a subsequent email backpedaled on this response. In the next email, Nvidia stated that they "worked closely" with TSMC on the packaging and material, and hence took full responsibility. DigiTimes attempted to ask TSMC and some of Nvidia's other packaging partners about the defective chips, but TSMC declined a response, citing "client confidentiality", and the other partners did not know anything about the issue because the chips were from an older generation by that point.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Ingrid |last2=Shen |first2=Steve |date=4 Jul 2008 |title=Nvidia contract makers in Taiwan low-key over defective chip reports |url=https://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20080704PD210.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704211726/http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20080704PD210.html |archive-date=4 Jul 2008 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=DIGITIMES}}</ref> In August 2008, Nvidia's CEO Jen-Hsun Huang explained how the company would handle the defect in an interview during Nvision 2008, claiming that Nvidia would take some responsibility for the defect and pay manufacturers to help consumers fix their devices.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Scath (Reuploader) |date=25 Aug 2008 |title=Nvision: Nvidia CEO Talks About Chip Failure |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZB6kxxgnOQ&t=275 |url-status=live |access-date=27 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref>

Joel Hruska from Ars Technica explained that if Nvidia ''was'' trying to cover up the defect- as Demerjian claimed- with this report to the SEC, they not only attempted to avoid responsibility and accused their suppliers of causing the problem, they also committed financial fraud by intentionally lowballing their expected financial losses. This is a major accusation that could have had severe consequences for Nvidia, and could have been dangerous for the company.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web |last=Hruska |first=Joel |date=16 Jul 2008 |title=NVIDIA denies rumors of faulty chips, mass GPU failures |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/07/nvidia-denies-rumors-of-mass-gpu-failures/ |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref> However, it is difficult to verify if Nvidia was lying or simply not fully aware of the scale of Bumpgate. Nvidia's public acknowledgement of the defect in the SEC report is consistent with when Dell<ref name=":8" /> and HP<ref name=":7" /> discovered the problem. Although Sony never made a statement on the "Yellow Light of Death", this is even consistent with when they switched the PlayStation 3 to the non-defective 65nm RSX.<ref name=":6" /> The only company it does not appear consistent with is Apple, who discovered the defect in their Macbook Pro systems after their own investigation in September 2008.<ref name=":9" /> Even so, it is possible that Nvidia did not know that the GeForce 8600M GT GPUs in the 2007-2008 Macbook Pro were impacted yet when Apple asked them about it, because the situation was still developing.

Regardless of if Nvidia was truthful in their report or not, they denied the claims that individuals like Demerjian were making- that all of their GPUs were defective and failing en masse.<ref name=":11" /> However, Nvidia was later sued in September by investors who alleged that the company had violated federal securities laws.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Levine |first=Jonathan |date=10 Sep 2008 |title=Gibbs Law Group LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against NVIDIA Corp. |url=https://www.classlawgroup.com/nvidia-lawsuit-filed-press-release |url-status=live |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=GibbsMura}}</ref> Shareholder Lisa Miller alleged in the lawsuit that Nvidia knew about the GPU problems as early as November 2007, and concealed this fact from investors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGlaun |first=Shane |date=10 Sep 2008 |title=NVIDIA sued over notebook GPU failures |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/09/nvidia-sued-over-notebook-gpu-failures/ |url-status=live |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=malware |date=11 Sep 2008 |title=NVIDIA Sued Over Faulty GPUs |url=https://www.techpowerup.com/71088/nvidia-sued-over-faulty-gpus |url-status=live |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=TechPowerUp}}</ref> By 2010, consumers' trust in Nvidia had eroded enough that a class action lawsuit was filed because of the defect.

==Nvidia Class-Action Lawsuit (2010)==
In 2008, individuals and companies began filing lawsuits against Nvidia. A total of nine cases were filed that were found to be related, and by 2010, these became a class-action lawsuit.

===Claims===
Class members claimed that Nvidia had manufactured defective GPUs and knowingly failed to compensate them. 

===Rebuttal===
Throughout the lawsuit, Nvidia continually denied allegations of intentional wrongdoing. 
===Outcome - Settlement and Class Member Appeal===
Nvidia opted for a settlement<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010 |title=Frequently Asked Questions - What can I get from the settlement? |url=https://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001080625/http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |archive-date=1 Oct 2010 |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=The NVIDIA GPU Litigation}}</ref>- though, still asserted that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. Consumers who participated as settlement class members were presented with three options to be compensated, with all benefits paid for by Nvidia:

#A replacement GPU inside their affected notebook;
#A replacement HP notebook computer with one "similar in kind and value" to the one they owned;
#Reimbursement of either the whole cost of repairing the notebook due to a previous GPU failure or a portion of that amount (dependent on how many people submitted valid claims for reimbursement).

The majority of people got their notebooks repaired, but some HP laptops could not be repaired, so they had to be replaced. Many of the systems eligible for the settlement were high-end laptops, originally valued around $1,000 USD. Unfortunately, they were given a budget Compaq Presario CQ56 that was not equivalent in specifications or original value, because it costed approximately how much the three-year-old, defective laptops they replaced were valued at by the time the settlement was reached. Outraged, some of those Class Members contacted Ted Frank from the Center for Class Action Fairness, who promptly filed a complaint with the court to appeal. However, US District Chief Judge James Ware ruled in Nvidia's favor, because the Compaq Presario CQ56 "[came] with an advanced operating system, new warranty and other programs".<ref name=":15">{{Cite web |last=DeCarlo |first=Matthew |date=3 May 2011 |title=Customers get shafted in Nvidia class action suit |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/43614-customers-get-shafted-in-nvidia-class-action-suit.html |url-status=live |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=TechSpot}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
===Microsoft (Xbox 360) Consumer Response===
At first, consumers were angry at Microsoft. During the months that the company would not acknowledge the widespread "Red Ring of Death", many consumers felt as if they'd been tricked and made a bad investment when they purchased an Xbox 360. However, when Microsoft extended the warranty on Xbox 360s experiencing an E74 error to three years after purchase, consumer sentiment improved. In Chapter 5 of ''Power On: The Story of Xbox,''<ref name=":3" /> hardware engineers for Xbox during this era explained the problem that caused the "Red Ring of Death" in enough detail for consumers to understand, leaving many consumers who remembered dealing with this issue feeling further validated and restoring some trust in Microsoft and the Xbox brand.

In addition, the release of the information in ''Power On'' helped enthusiasts learn more about how to fix the issue in early Xbox 360s themselves, if necessary. Many consumers who had purchased an Xbox 360 from this era<ref>{{Cite web |last=Enever |first=Liam |date=1 Oct 2017 |title=Why has my got the red ring of death (sic) |url=https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/430460/Why+has+my+got+the+red+ring+of+death |url-status=live |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=iFixIt Answers Forum}}</ref> and even some independent repair technicians<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 Apr 2014 |title=Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death: Why Lead-Free Solder or Solder Failure Are the Problem |url=https://electronicfix.com.au/console-repairs/what-does-the-rrod-mean/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=The Electronic Fix}}</ref> had initially assumed that the issue was caused by Microsoft using lead-free solder balls- which are used to connect the Xenos GPU to the motherboard- in order to meet new-at-the-time RoHS standards in the European Union. These individuals alleged that the brittler nature of non-leaded solder made the connections weaker compared to traditional leaded solder, causing the defect. Other consumers had a similar assumption, and thought it was related to the solder balls' melting point, and that the console was getting too hot and "desoldering" the GPU from the motherboard as a result. These misconceptions largely faded into obscurity when Microsoft released the non-defective revisions of the Xbox 360 and announced their extended warranty on their defective consoles, but they were dispelled entirely once Chapter 5 of ''Power On'' was released.

Although the majority of Xbox 360 consoles affected by Bumpgate were repaired by Microsoft as part of their extended warranty program, there were some that managed to slip through the cracks, so consumers today still need to be informed. It is generally recommended by retro console enthusiasts to purchase Xbox 360 consoles manufactured after May 2008 (or marked "Q2 2008") and avoid consoles manufactured before this point, but the Tonasket (AKA "Jasper Kronos" or "Jasper V2") motherboard revision is generally considered to be the most reliable of the original "phat" model Xbox 360 consoles.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nadaman |display-authors=etal |date=8 Jun 2025 |title=Xbox 360 - Buying Guide |url=https://consolemods.org/wiki/Xbox_360:Buying_Guide |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=ConsoleMods Wiki}}</ref>

===Sony (PlayStation 3) Consumer Response===
Consumers who experienced the "Yellow Light of Death" were upset with Sony for their poor response. Some, such as PS3 modding and repair enthusiast "RIP Felix", described Sony's response as "gaslighting"<ref name=":2" />- saying that Sony had manipulated consumers into thinking that there was no widespread defect. The six-page letter from Ray Maguire to the BBC following their Watchdog segment takes a tone that supports Felix's claim<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" />; By 2009, Sony had stopped producing PS3s with the defective 90nm RSX- which left many consumers suspicious that Sony was trying to cover up the problem to avoid taking responsibility for it.

In 2006, when the PlayStation 3 was new, the console costed $599 USD for the 60GB model ($499 USD for the 20GB model).<ref name=":3" /> This was a major price to pay for a game console at the time; the Nintendo Wii launched at $249.99 USD in November 2006,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sanders |first=Kathleen |last2=Casamassina |first2=Matt |date=14 Sep 2006 |title=US Wii Price, Launch Date Revealed |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/09/14/us-wii-price-launch-date-revealed |url-status=live |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=IGN}}</ref> and the Xbox 360 launched in late November 2005 at $399 USD ($299 USD for the Core System version).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Surette |first=Tim |date=17 Aug 2005 |title=Xbox 360 pricing revealed: $299 and $399 models due at launch |url=https://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-360-pricing-revealed-299-and-399-models-due-at-launch-6131245 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605013951/http://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-360-pricing-revealed-299-and-399-models-due-at-launch-6131245 |archive-date=5 Jun 2013 |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=GameSpot}}</ref> Because of the extremely high price compared to competitors, consumers felt that they were making a major investment in a high quality system that would be well-supported if there was a defect. Unfortunately, Sony failed to ever acknowledge the "Yellow Light of Death", other than denying how widespread it was in their only official rebuttal from Ray Maguire, and made consumers pay for an issue that was never their fault.

Some consumers who dealt with the "Yellow Light of Death" paid Sony to repair their systems, but others decided to consider it a loss. For consumers whose systems failed after the "Slim" models came out, some of them chose to re-purchase the cheaper, allegedly more reliable Slim models. At the time, it was assumed that these models were not prone to "Yellow Light of Death" (they have since been confirmed completely non-defective), but there was still some uncertainty among the community at the time. However, others gave up on Sony entirely, switching to other platforms- particularly, the Xbox 360.

====Consumers perform their own repairs====
As a result of the poor response from Sony, consumers largely took things into their own hands. When the PS3 was still supported, informed consumers were sure to warn prospective buyers that the "backwards compatible" and "phat" models of PS3 were prone to the "Yellow Light of Death", that Sony wouldn't fix it for free, and even if they were willing to send it in for repairs, the system would be reset. In the United Kingdom, there was the BBC Watchdog segment that- while misguided on the cause of the problem- did inform consumers across the UK about the issues, so they knew to avoid these early PS3s and choose a newer Slim model if they wanted a PS3.

As of 2025, nearly every PS3 enthusiast knows about the reliability issues of the early, "backwards compatible" PlayStation 3s. Despite this, though, these systems are quite popular among retro console repair and modding enthusiasts particularly for their ability to play not only original PlayStation games, but also PlayStation 2 games. The earliest two revisions, CECHAxx and CECHBxx, even have real PlayStation 2 processors built-in.<ref name=":18" /> This is especially enticing to consumers who own a PlayStation 5, which is capable of playing PlayStation 4 games, so a person could play any PlayStation game across any generation on legitimate hardware with only two consoles. The reliability issues of these early PS3s is a major downside to consumers, though, so the community has been looking for ways to permanently repair these systems for nearly two decades.

However, because Sony never acknowledged the defect, it was far less clear to consumers what exactly was causing the fault than it was for the Xbox 360. This led many retro console and repair enthusiasts to make poorly informed choices in how to attempt to repair their devices. The only guidance that consumers had for what the fault could be was from the BBC Watchdog segment stating that it was a GPU failure- however, they had incorrectly diagnosed the cause in the segment. BBC Watchdog had also employed technicians to reflow the components on afflicted PS3s' motherboards- which led enthusiasts to believe that doing the same to their console would fix it. However, this would only temporarily restore functionality to the system.

By 2018, frustrated PS3 owners were searching for a better solution- preferably, an easier fix. As a result, rumors began to spread that it was not the RSX GPU that was defective, but rather, the NEC-Tokin capacitors surrounding it.<ref name=":4" /> The reason for the misconception was because Toshiba laptops from the same era had their NEC-Tokins fail prematurely due to a design flaw specific to those laptops. In addition, a failure of the NEC-Tokins can result in similar behavior from the PS3, lending further credence to the claim. It was all but "confirmed" when enthusiasts tried replacing them with tantalum capacitors, and it worked for some. However, the reason for this is because it is possible for PS3s to have a GPU-related failure because of the NEC-Tokin capacitors. It has since been confirmed that the NEC-Tokins are not defective or poorly placed, and if they have failed in a console, it is likely due to normal aging. In fact, these capacitors are specialized for their purpose in the PS3, and should not be replaced unless they truly have failed.

In 2020, PSX-Place forum user "Icferrum" discovered a CECHAxx PS3 with a 40nm RSX inside instead of a standard 90nm RSX. There was no information about this modification online, so the only explanation was that Sony had done this officially. This set enthusiasts off to find a way to perform the same modification. A breakthrough was eventually made with the development of the "Frankenstein Mod" in 2021 (sometimes referred to as the "Orbis Mod"), which utilizes an Orbis modchip to make a 40nm RSX compatible with older PS3 models.<ref name=":17" />

As for how consumers largely discovered that the problem was related to Bumpgate, YouTube and PSX-Place user "RIP Felix" published multiple videos detailing his research and theories regarding the early PS3s' defect. Most significantly, Felix published a video where he and Xbox 360 repair and modding enthusiast Josh Davidson (Octal450 on the ConsoleMods Wiki) performed various experiments to confirm their theory that the PS3's 90nm RSX was affected by Bumpgate. They tested the solder bumps under the 90nm RSX's die to confirm the use of high-lead solder bumps, and also performed a variety of tests on the underfill, comparing it to similar defective and non-defective GPUs from the same era- such as the Xbox 360's GPUs and Nvidia's GPUs. The tests included simply shining an ultraviolet light on the underfill to see the similarities in color and luminescence, poking the underfill of each of the GPUs with a soldering iron at various temperatures to compare the reactions, and even using a UV visual spectrophotometer to visualize the difference between compositions in various underfills. The results strongly support Felix's theory that the PS3's 90nm RSX's defects were due to Bumpgate; each test showed that the 90nm RSX was remarkably similar to known defective GPUs, but distinct from non-defective ones.<ref name=":14" /> Felix and Davidson's findings effectively confirm that the only way to repair early PlayStation 3s with the "Yellow Light of Death" caused by a GPU failure is to replace the GPU with a non-defective model.

Thanks to the work of retro console modding and repair enthusiasts, consumers have an option to permanently repair these valuable systems. However, the "Frankenstein Mod" is not recommended for inexperienced modders or those who don't have access to a BGA rework station. Because of the specialized nature of this modification, most people will still recommend for consumers to find someone skilled enough to do the modification for them, buy a system that is already modified, or to simply avoid purchasing any consoles impacted by Bumpgate.

===Nvidia Consumer Response===
Many consumers were uncomfortable with purchasing Nvidia's products for several years, because they saw Nvidia as untrustworthy after their perceived response to the Bumpgate scandal. A GPU is one of the most expensive components in a computer, and it's an investment expected to last for approximately as long as the component remains technologically relevant. Therefore, consumers had some right to be cautious when hearing about defective Nvidia GPUs- especially before the defect was publicly acknowledged.

If a product does not last because of a defect, then the company should respect their customer's investment by honoring the warranty- or by recalling the product if the defect is found to be common, as with Bumpgate. Nvidia's SEC report<ref name=":10" /> shows that they appeared to have this intention, and the company informing Dell<ref name=":8" /> and HP<ref name=":7" /> of the defect also seem to demonstrate this. In addition, based on the fact that Bumpgate affected some non-Nvidia processors (such as the Xbox 360's ''ATI'' graphics processor<ref name=":3" />), Nvidia was likely not fully responsible for the underfill defect. In fact, they alleged in the SEC report that it was their packaging company that caused the problem. However, this did not quell consumers' anger at Nvidia, and a class action lawsuit was filed. Unfortunately, the results of that lawsuit and subsequent settlement left consumers still angry and frustrated at the company- especially those who received insufficient compensation, like those who ended up with a budget laptop to replace their high-end laptop.<ref name=":15" /> This only fueled consumer distrust for Nvidia. Although the defect may not have fully been Nvidia's fault, their failure to properly compensate some Class Members when they agreed to settle was unacceptable to many consumers.

==See Also:==

*[[Nvidia]]
*[[Microsoft]]
*[[Sony]]
*[[HP Inc.|HP]]
*[[Apple]]

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Nvidia]]

{{Placeholder box|[[mw:Help:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_categories|Add a category]] with the same name as the product, service, website, software, product line or company that this article is about.

The "Incidents" category is not needed.}}