i-Sue, uSue, we allSue: A million here, a million there and pretty soon we’re talking real money. Uh, $1.6 billion to be exact. Class action style suits slap Apple & AT&T with charges and claims of wrongdoing in light of an alleged blocking of iPhone mods. Add this to Timothy Smith’s antitrust suit and Dongmei Li’s iPhone price cutting lawsuit and we find ourselves in the unenviable position of being, like, the last people around to NOT have sued Apple for something. Failure is an orphan but success, and apparently lawsuits, has many fathers, mothers, brothers, half-cousins and step-grandparents. We did just buy an iPod classic though, so give us the good word and we're suing…and then there is, of course, this …
The rumors of iPod classic demise greatly under-exaggerated?: Can’t keep the players straight without a scorecard. Some say the patient will recover, some say not. We say, if anything bad happens to our recently purchased iPod classic -- we get scared by a small child while holding it, it plays any songs by Britney Spears or it catches fire in our pants pocket -- we’re suing, um…the world. All of this anxiety over consumer electronics….sheesh.
Why Wi-Fi?: Quasi-almost-used-to-be-sort-of relevant journal of note Rolling Stone lavishes praise on the iTunes Wi-Fi music store. Which, of course, only works with the iPod touch. We’re SUING!
iMac woes no more: Which we guess means no more lawsuits. Perhaps this is something, in and of itself, sue worthy. In any case, the iMac MXM Updater is supposed to cure iMac's Boot Camp woes (mostly trouble in booting into the Windows-oriented partition after installing Boot Camp). If it doesn’t? You got it: SUE.
And in closing: Apple opening up the iPhone to third party apps, and lawsuits (we can only hope)? Couuuulllddddd be.
qiqi
December 21, 2009 at 9:43pm
And we also provide fast delivery service, guarantee our listing price is lower than other competitors.replicas watches and professional customer service. We are more than ready to show our unique prowess and fortes to gain our footing.
Anonymous
December 12, 2007 at 1:09pm
You guys who complain about not being able to do what you want with your toy make me laugh. You think you have a right to demand things of the company because you bought the product, which is a 21st-century self-absorbed notion if ever there was one.
Apple designed the product, manufactured the product, and now sells the product. If you don't like it DON'T BUY IT. You people KNEW what you were getting into when you bought the thing.
I'd like an iPhone, too - but I'm not buying one until they're off AT&T. I'm not going to buy one and then sue because I can't use it with Verizon. That's just retarded. As much as people talk about Apple being greedy, it's the people that demand monetary compensation for a product that they willingly purchased KNOWING what the limitations were... that's REAL greed.
macmikey
October 16, 2007 at 6:42am
A couple of things.
First, Apple went to bed with AT&T because only AT&T would give Apple all the technologies they wanted (push email, etc.). Verizon or Cingular may have been better fits, but for some unknowable reason they decided it wasn't worth the trouble. They may be kicking themselves now, but at the time they probably figured no one would spend $500-$600 on a cell phone (which, despite statements to the contrary, is all the carriers EVER think of the devices).
Only AT&T had the foresight (or lack of understanding what the iPhone would demand of their network) to hook up with Apple on service. Now that their network has burgeoned just a bit, they're REALLY glad they went into the relationship with a more-or-less non-competitve agreement, wherein Apple doesn't do business with ANY OTHER carrier. Which brings me to point two...
Second (see? I told you there were two), Apple has succumbed to this new (and, frankly, frightening) notion that EVERYTHING that moves around in the computer/electronics industry is not really OWNED by the user, but merely LICENSED by the user. Usually (and historically) we have used the term only in reference to software. But with a device that requires constant (network) service (i.e., iPhone or AppleTV) as opposed to a device that can be operated more or less independently from any type of network (i.e., everything else Apple makes), Apple feels like they still OWN a crucial part of the device--ongoing service. (That's even if the "ongoing service" is being provided by a third-party entity like AT&T).
In summation: you iPhone users DO NOT OWN your phones. You are LICENSCING them. Like most people, this quite frankly flies all over me, but that's the raw deal. Any attempt to change networks with the device is a violation of your license agreement. Just because "no other carrier does this" doesn't mean that Apple (a computer company USED TO this licenscing crap) will feel compelled to play by the same rules.
Anonymous
October 15, 2007 at 3:45pm
For once I'm glad they're getting sued...
The iPhone and iPod touch have the capability to have 3rd party apps added without going through Apple's website. Preventing people from being able to do what they want with the phones they bought isn't fair.
Bill Gates
October 13, 2007 at 9:45am
Welcome to the big league Apple, Microsoft gets sued Daily!
Anonymous
October 13, 2007 at 5:29am
So the iphone is locked. Get over it
This thing kicks ass. It's definitely
worth the $400 bucks. NO other
phone will have this user interface.
Anonymous
October 12, 2007 at 3:50pm
I won't buy an iPhone just because of the lock.
All other carriers will let you unlock their phone with a simple phone call.
I think there may have been a law about them having to unlock it, but I could be wrong.
I have 3 tmobile phones and I called tmobile and asked for the unlock codes for each, which they happily supplied and I unlocked all of my phones including my Blakberry Pearl.
I got a Treo 650 from work and I don't even have a Cingular account. I called them and got the code with no trouble.
Why is Apple locking its customers in? Greed!
What happens if you need to change carriers, move, complete your contract, hate their chosen carrier?
It seems that only Apple is not providing the unlock.
Maybe someone else out there knows if there really is a law that they must provide it?
Other than that, I am in agreement that there are too many lawsuits out there, but maybe just a few are justified.
Remember the exploding laptop batteries? The iBook motherboard warranty?
My brother was one of the unlucky people that got one of the bad runs of Powerbooks with the bad LCD that faded away and washed out.
If Apple hadn't been forced to extend the warranty, he would have been screwed.
There are a lot of times that Apple isn't exactly honest and the first thing they do is deny everything. They don't do the right thing until they are sued.
If they were more honest there would be fewer lawsuits. Most people just want to be treated fairly after paying a premium price for a premium product.
The people that just want to grab part of Apple's success and sue over nothing should be thrown in Jail.
If they made the loser pay all of the court costs, that would sure reduce the problem!
site7000
October 15, 2007 at 12:46pm
As a lawyer I appreciate most of your post, but having the loser pay attorney fees, which is how most of the world operates, deters anyone without very deep pockets from suing. Neither approach is perfect, but the US system is better for the average person. Plus, certain statutes do make it possible to recover attorney fees in specific cases, usually when a corporation has been found guilty of abusing its power.
Anonymous
October 15, 2007 at 10:23am
The iPhone is locked in to AT&T, because AT&T is the only carrier which currently supports the iPhone. What was Apple's alternative? Allow the phone to be unlocked, some schmoe switches it to another carrier, finds out his visual voicemail doesn't work, and sues Apple for making an incompatible product. Damned if they do, damned if they don't!
Ben
October 12, 2007 at 12:50pm
I don't see any lawsuits popping up because Apple voids the AppleCare on iPods where you've installed Linux.
I bet by the time I post this, there will be a updated news round-up and it will look like I spoke too soon.
Anonymous
October 12, 2007 at 12:40pm
Dear Sir,
I object strongly to the use of the word "sue" and it's variants far too many times. Where are all the articles about Mary Rand's Gold Metal Jump of 1964?
Yours Truly,
R.M. NixonWhew! Bet that's a job and a half, ma'am!
