And now the Lawyers take over!

youngjm · ‎05-02-2003

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10021885-37.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

_____________________

For service or support questions including existing order status, call:
Customer Support: 1-800-331-0500

Information on iPhone unlocking can be found here by copying this link into your browser:
http://forums.wireless.att.com/t5/Apple-Community-Discussion/iPhone-Unlock-Information/m-p/3260825#U3260825

Jameson! · ‎12-08-2003

Ugh....... I guess we'll be getting another $15 accessory coupon, sometime in the future. And some new group of lawyers will end up filthy rich!

youngjm · ‎05-02-2003

Jameson! wrote:
Ugh....... I guess we'll be getting another $15 accessory coupon, sometime in the future. And some new group of lawyers will end up filthy rich!

I did not think the coupon would be that much! Here's to wishful thinking! I am going to have to think carefully about what I want to spend that one on,

Message Edited by youngjm on 08-21-2008 05:52:31 AM

_____________________

For service or support questions including existing order status, call:
Customer Support: 1-800-331-0500

Information on iPhone unlocking can be found here by copying this link into your browser:
http://forums.wireless.att.com/t5/Apple-Community-Discussion/iPhone-Unlock-Information/m-p/3260825#U3260825

Zandora · ‎01-13-2008

I wonder how come we haven't heard from all the fanboys and fangirls who *INSISTED* that AT&T is *crap* because the iPhone kept dropping calls, blaming AT&T instead of Apple.

This lawsuit goes to show where the legal liability lies. Because you can believe that the lawyers would have added AT&T to the lawsuit if they could have.

Message Edited by csp_gp on 08-21-2008 06:01:06 AM

youngjm · ‎05-02-2003

csp_gp wrote:
I wonder how come we haven't heard from all the fanboys and fangirls who *INSISTED* that AT&T is *crap* because the iPhone kept dropping calls, blaming AT&T instead of Apple.

This lawsuit goes to show where the legal liability lies. Because you can believe that the lawyers would have added AT&T to the lawsuit if they could have.

Message Edited by csp_gp on 08-21-2008 06:01:06 AM

Of course it is ATT's problem. How else could all of the users in Europe had problems too!

_____________________

For service or support questions including existing order status, call:
Customer Support: 1-800-331-0500

Information on iPhone unlocking can be found here by copying this link into your browser:
http://forums.wireless.att.com/t5/Apple-Community-Discussion/iPhone-Unlock-Information/m-p/3260825#U3260825

bhurlburt · ‎05-26-2004

Not sure who is ultimately at fault, but methinks your logic is broken. If the european users are also having problems then it would seem to me that the device is defective as it is the only common point.

youngjm · ‎05-02-2003

bhurlburt wrote:
Not sure who is ultimately at fault, but methinks your logic is broken. If the european users are also having problems then it would seem to me that the device is defective as it is the only common point.

Sorry I forgot to turn on the sarcasm note! initially all the issues were blamed on ATT.

_____________________

For service or support questions including existing order status, call:
Customer Support: 1-800-331-0500

Information on iPhone unlocking can be found here by copying this link into your browser:
http://forums.wireless.att.com/t5/Apple-Community-Discussion/iPhone-Unlock-Information/m-p/3260825#U3260825

Demetri70 · ‎06-18-2008

bhurlburt wrote:
Not sure who is ultimately at fault, but methinks your logic is broken. If the european users are also having problems then it would seem to me that the device is defective as it is the only common point.

LOL I think it's called sarcasm...

opps too slow

Message Edited by Demetri70 on 08-21-2008 07:47:37 AM

Planet-Ed · ‎07-09-2005

bhurlburt wrote:
Not sure who is ultimately at fault, but methinks your logic is broken. If the european users are also having problems then it would seem to me that the device is defective as it is the only common point.

methinks he was joking and it was meant not to be taken seriously.

asaguilar23 · ‎06-24-2008

wow that's nuts...

so if Apple loses, then they'll most likely give us something as compensation?

Demetri70 · ‎06-18-2008

Yup like a $10 itunes gift card

asaguilar23 · ‎06-24-2008

hahah we'll i'll be down for that...anyone know if iTunes has The Office season (whichever season) dvd for that price?...ha

DWC1 · ‎12-23-2002

I hate to see the Lawyers getting rich over this one while the consumers only end up with a small meaningless token. However sometimes that's the only way to keep some of these mega corporations honest.

Jameson! · ‎12-08-2003

Agreed in principle, but I think APPLE knows exactly what they have at stake in this mess and a lawsuit is not going to change their strategy. If they don't correct this problem in short order, they risk the entire future of the iPhone. Even now, I'll bet that the bad press has impacted sales to some extent....

These lawsuits should be limited to situations where a company refuses to act on a problem, not simply because there was a screw-up in the development process.

DWC1 wrote:
I hate to see the Lawyers getting rich over this one while the consumers only end up with a small meaningless token. However sometimes that's the only way to keep some of these mega corporations honest.

youngjm · ‎05-02-2003

Jameson! wrote:

These lawsuits should be limited to situations where a company refuses to act on a problem, not simply because there was a screw-up in the development process.

Absolutely agree. A company needs to be able to correct a problem and 2.0.2 is evidence of that. Unfortunately they still did not get it for everyone. If the rumors are correct, they are still trying to fix it. All the lawyers do is get in the way of disclosure.

I still cannot wait for that gift card. I hope it is for more than the plastic it is included on.

_____________________

For service or support questions including existing order status, call:
Customer Support: 1-800-331-0500

Information on iPhone unlocking can be found here by copying this link into your browser:
http://forums.wireless.att.com/t5/Apple-Community-Discussion/iPhone-Unlock-Information/m-p/3260825#U3260825

Demetri70 · ‎06-18-2008

I remember when Verizon got sued over them disabling Bluetooth (file transfer) on the V710 (Motorola...said on the box it had it). After two years and 2 phones later I got $325 and out of my current contract...So you never know what the settlement ends up being!

Message Edited by Demetri70 on 08-21-2008 08:25:19 AM

Zandora · ‎01-13-2008

Demetri70 wrote:
I remember when Verizon got sued over them disabling Bluetooth (file transfer) on the V710 (Motorola...said on the box it had it). After two years and 2 phones later I got $325 and out of my current contract...So you never know what the settlement ends up being!

Message Edited by Demetri70 on 08-21-2008 08:25:19 AM

Whatever would be the business reason for disabling this function?

Maybe they want people to pay MMS fees to transfer to computer via email instead of "for free"...

How shortsighted of them.

davidusr · ‎01-19-2007

I think the plaintiff was a little hasty. Apple should be given the chance to fully correct the problem in a reasonable amount of time. In fact, I think I may wave my right to collect in the lawsuit, if they do put forth the honest effort to correct it. I do, on the other hand think we should be better informed on the status of the issue, from Apple.

Jameson! · ‎12-08-2003

They wanted to force people to get ringtones, wallpapers, etc, from their "Get-It-Now" system and pay for it, versus simply loading it onto the phone and using it for free.

Demetri70 · ‎06-18-2008

csp_gp wrote:

Demetri70 wrote:
I remember when Verizon got sued over them disabling Bluetooth (file transfer) on the V710 (Motorola...said on the box it had it). After two years and 2 phones later I got $325 and out of my current contract...So you never know what the settlement ends up being!

Message Edited by Demetri70 on 08-21-2008 08:25:19 AM
Whatever would be the business reason for disabling this function?

Maybe they want people to pay MMS fees to transfer to computer via email instead of "for free"...

How shortsighted of them.

VZW IMO has the best network as far as signal, but they pretty much keep very tight control on there phones and up until very recently removed many features so you were forced to buy from there online store and services. They also ordered all there phones without wi-fi for said reason. I think that's why Apple and VZW didn't work out too (they were asked first).

Jameson! · ‎12-08-2003

I doubt that VZW was even approached regarding the iPhone. That would have forced APPLE to release 2 completely different versions of the phone! One CDMA version for the USA and a GSM version for the rest of the world.

Demetri70 wrote:

I think that's why Apple and VZW didn't work out too (they were asked first).

Demetri70 · ‎06-18-2008

Apple would have prevented all US unlocked phones...no sims, also the evdo network was already up on running. It's been published in dozens of places that VZW refused Apples demands and then they went across the street to AT&T!

cousintim · ‎05-24-2005

VZ did in fact turn down the iPhone. Whether it was first company approached or one of the first two is known only to Apple.

Demetri70 · ‎06-18-2008

Here is one article there is also a statement from VZW CEO addmitting to it somewere...but this was the first one I found..

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htm

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9979200-37.html?hhTest=1&tag=blog.1

Message Edited by Demetri70 on 08-21-2008 09:08:00 AM

youngjm · ‎05-02-2003

davidusr wrote:
I think the plaintiff was a little hasty. Apple should be given the chance to fully correct the problem in a reasonable amount of time. In fact, I think I may wave my right to collect in the lawsuit, if they do put forth the honest effort to correct it. I do, on the other hand think we should be better informed on the status of the issue, from Apple.

As long as the lawyers are out there, they are not going to be as forthcoming as we would like so as to not give them ammunition. Until companies are given the chance to correct the issues without fear of a lawsuit, their legal council won't let them be open and honest. Now if they do nothing, that is a different story but all indications are that Apple is trying to correct this.

_____________________

For service or support questions including existing order status, call:
Customer Support: 1-800-331-0500

Information on iPhone unlocking can be found here by copying this link into your browser:
http://forums.wireless.att.com/t5/Apple-Community-Discussion/iPhone-Unlock-Information/m-p/3260825#U3260825

DWC1 · ‎12-23-2002

Demetri70 wrote:

. I think that's why Apple and VZW didn't work out too (they were asked first).

I really sincerely doubt that's the reason. It most likely had more to do with the fact that Verizon requires a CDMA handset. CDMA is only used by a few million people around the world while GSM/UMTS is used by Billions. It would have been a distraction and very costly for Apple to make a CDMA handset for such a small subscriber base. That's more likely the real reason IMHO.

bhurlburt · ‎05-26-2004

youngjm wrote:

bhurlburt wrote:
Not sure who is ultimately at fault, but methinks your logic is broken. If the european users are also having problems then it would seem to me that the device is defective as it is the only common point.

Sorry I forgot to turn on the sarcasm note! initially all the issues were blamed on ATT

Well, bad on me... I thought I had my sarcasm detector on but since I got i from AT&T it is apparently disabled...HAHA made myself laugh.

Demetri70 · ‎06-18-2008

DWC1 wrote:

Demetri70 wrote:

. I think that's why Apple and VZW didn't work out too (they were asked first).

I really sincerely doubt that's the reason. It most likely had more to do with the fact that Verizon requires a CDMA handset. CDMA is only used by a few million people around the world while GSM/UMTS is used by Billions. It would have been a distraction and very costly for Apple to make a CDMA handset for such a small subscriber base. That's more likely the real reason IMHO.

No other phone maker has a problem making a CDMA version of there handset, so I don't think Apple would! Verizon not going for a itunes exclusive (music) and profit sharing (bad president to other phone suppliers) is most likely the reason.

asaguilar23 · ‎06-24-2008

I do agree with the plantiff acting a bit hastily and I do agree that Apple should be given the chance to fix the problem...

But when Apple advertises the phone, before it's even released, to be fast, get 3G coverage, and need I say again, fast, then it really should be that way when it is released. They drew in a lot of customers to buy their iPhone 3Gs with their advertisements and failed. I understand it's only been a little bit over a month and of course, a brand new phone is going to have bugs, but then they shouldn't advertise it as if it wasn't going to have bugs in the areas they advertised the most, if it's already expected for a new phone to have bugs to work out.

It's almost like advertising a really cute puppy that can do many tricks on command, but when you buy it, it really isn't that cute and can't even "sit" on command.

Message Edited by asaguilar23 on 08-21-2008 11:11:22 AM

Demetri70 · ‎06-18-2008

For the people who don't live in a 3G area AT&T has maps that show were the coverage areas are so that's a choice they make to pay for service they may not receive full benefit from. For the people who live in IL/NYC/CA three of the biggest US markets I could totally see your point. I have been in all three places with a Blackjack and had awesome AT&T 3G service so would expect the iphone to perform the same or better!