Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 70
Discuss Class Action Lawsuit Respondents Needed at the General - Hackint0sh.org; Originally Posted by cecilalb izim, bad analogy. Suppose I buy an iPhone from Apple. I ...
  1. #21
    Guest Array izim1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cecilalb View Post
    izim, bad analogy.

    Suppose I buy an iPhone from Apple. I don't even really want a phone, I just like the pretty colors on the activation screen. I gaze at the screen for hours every day. 30 days later my pretty picture quits working! I take it back to Apple and they refuse warranty because it's not activated on AT&T? I don't think so.

    If my iphone quits working and that reason is not directly attributable to my hacking the phone, then Apple owes me warranty coverage, both legally and morally. It makes absolutely no difference what they write on the box.
    again....
    same answer i just gave the other dude......
    when did i say apple has the right to deny warranty? search my posts. heck search for me on gizmodo. i've always said they have to fix it. ive beaten "written" warrranties before. as for the anology if you guys were aware that 99' over there keeps repeating his "apple shouldnt be allowed to sell the iphone at their retail stores because that confuses people and that just wrong" deal, then you woulda known what i was referring to.


  2. #22
    Rookie Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    29
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    F' the lawyers.

    These f'ers got millions and I got what, like $5 itunes giftcard.

    No thanks,

  3. #23
    Professional Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Class Action ? No thanks. I would much rather testify for Apple as someone who knowingly hacked and voided the iPhone warranty! Apple put out lots of warning about the possibility of bricking the iPhone if u have third party apps installed. The local news channel even has a segment about it - that's their PR machine at work. If they maliciously want to brick ur phone, why would they warn? Apple didn't brick your phone - you did by ignoring the warning and applying the f/w upgrade!

  4. #24
    scoundrel_ae
    Guest

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by myndex View Post
    Mods: If possible, can this be made a sticky for a few weeks?


    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    To: iPhone Owners denied warranty service.
    From: MTI

    Seeking respondents for possible class action lawsuit against Apple Inc. relating to refusal to service iPhones and related accessories under warranty.

    Classes: There are three potential classes in this case:


    1) Persons who own an iPhone and used software to access the available flash drive space on the iPhone, *without* modifying iPhone firmware nor installing 3rd party applications on the iPhone itself. Among this class are users of the commercial product "iPhoneDrive", a third party application that allows the iPhone to be used as a storage device, but that does not alter iPhone firmware nor install executables onto the iPhone itself.

    Persons of this class must have been refused warranty service by Apple or its associated Apple stores, with such refusal being due to respondent's use of iPhoneDrive, iToner, or other external application that does NOT alter firmware.




    2) Persons who own an iPhone, and who installed 3rd party software on the iPhone for the purpose of expanding its functionality. Examples of such programs are "Installer.app" and the native applications that it installs into the iPhone.

    Persons of this class must have restored their iPhone firmware back to factory defaults, or be seeking services for a non-firmware nor software issue, such as a defective touch screen, defective battery, or other purely hardware failure under warranty, and have been refused service due to their past usage of third party applications.



    3) Persons who unlocked their iPhone to allow for its use on networks other than ATT.

    Persons of this class must have restored their iPhone firmware back to factory defaults, or be seeking services for a non-firmware nor software issue, such as a defective touch screen, defective battery, or other purely hardware failure under warranty, and have been refused service due to their past usage of third party applications.



    If you are a member of one of the above classes, please respond by sending an email to:

    classaction@myndex.com

    In the subject line, please state only "Class One" , "Class Two", or "Class Three", depending on the class that you belong to. Emails with subject lines other that one of these three will be ignored.

    In the body of the email, please state your name and contact information (to be held strictly confidential), and the circumstances relating to Apple's refusal of warranty service. Please be as complete as possible, and try to include the following:

    1) Date you purchased the iPhone, and the state where purchased

    2) A complete description of the third party applications you used with your iPhone (for members of class three, the method of unlock).

    3) The reason for the need for warranty service

    4) If upgrading to firmware 1.1.1 appeared to result in the problem requiring service

    5) If upgrading to iTunes 7.4.2 or later appeared to result in the problem requiring service

    6) If you successfully did a "restore" prior to bringing the iPhone to Apple

    7) The name of the Apple representative that refused service

    8) The exact reason Apple stated that they were refusing service,



    Regards,

    MTI
    This could be someone from Apple Inc. posing to be on our side and wants us to give them our email addresses and etc... So, they can keep track of all the people who have modified their iPhones in the 3 methods mentioned above.

    It seems that Apple Inc. and Mr. Jobs are modern day "NAZIS"

  5. #25
    Rookie Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    10
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Apple telling you that you putting software on the phone makes it fall out of warranty is pure bullshit thats like them saying they wont warranty your new imac becase you put a piece of software on it.. the phone runs os x they made a big deal of this when they told the world of the phone, so if it runs the mac os and i can put software, files, programs on my mac without voiding the warranty how can you not put shit on your iphone without voiding the warranty.... if you fuck up your phones software im not saying they should fix it for you for free but if you have a hardware defect theres probably not much chance in hell its because you put an application on the phone using apptapp or whatever.... they just wouldnt have a leg to stand on if you actually fought them...


  6. #26
    Rookie Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by izim1 View Post
    what are YOU talking about that i dont listlen?
    You said: "you dont seem to understand that apple has made it pretty clear that the iphone is for use with at&t only."
    This is not a justification for bricking iPhones owned by people who apply non-destructive software methods of going against this desire. Just because Apple says, "for use on AT&T only," doesn't mean they have the right to reach in to your phone and kill it if the owner strays from AT&T. Apple is not God of my (or anyone else's) iPhone. I say you aren't listening, because this has been pointed out already earlier in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by izim1 View Post
    ... and unless you have some "secret" wired conversation with SJ in which he says somethng to the effect of: "check this out dude, im gonna screw all the hacked iphones up, its gonna be soooo funny" on tape, then i just dont see how you can prove "malicious intent".
    You look at what the update does. You look at what the update does not do. You consider that SJ has stated that the company will actively combat unlocking. You look at what the hacks/unlocks did. You look at what the hacks/unlocks did not do. You consider that the authors of the hacks/unlocks have said about the reversibility of their efforts.

    It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the iBrick situation could have been easily avoided in the crafting of this update. Again, I'm not a legal expert, and I don't know if they violated any laws in any of this update stuff (and I'm sure you don't know their legal status either). But I do know that a class-action suit would not be the kind of press Apple wants, that pissing off a number of iPhone enthusiasts is not what Apple wants, that all this could have been avoided with a very small amount of effort, and that the outcry against their actions was completely predictable. This amounts to an incentive on Apple's part to make the small investment of time and energy to preserve the good name of their company and keep their paying customers happy. So why didn't they do this? The logical conclusion would appear to be that they wanted to make an example out of those who strayed from their commandment of, "for use on AT&T only." And, making an example out of someone sure sounds to me like "malicious intent" (as you put it).

    The legal status of what has happened seems fairly gray. If a group feels strongly enough to press the issue in a class-action suit, they certainly have the right to do so -- resolving the legal status of gray issues is exactly what our court system is for.

  7. #27
    Guest Array izim1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meowth View Post
    Class Action ? No thanks. I would much rather testify for Apple as someone who knowingly hacked and voided the iPhone warranty! Apple put out lots of warning about the possibility of bricking the iPhone if u have third party apps installed. The local news channel even has a segment about it - that's their PR machine at work. If they maliciously want to brick ur phone, why would they warn? Apple didn't brick your phone - you did by ignoring the warning and applying the f/w upgrade!
    than you meowth. finally someone who thinks like me. are you sure were not the same person just logging on under different handles?

  8. #28
    Rookie Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by scoundrel_ae View Post
    It seems that Apple Inc. and Mr. Jobs are modern day "NAZIS"
    Hey, Godwin's Law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law)

    ... and, please, come up with something rational.

  9. #29
    Rookie Array

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    19
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by meowth View Post
    Apple put out lots of warning about the possibility of bricking the iPhone if u have third party apps installed. If they maliciously want to brick ur phone, why would they warn?
    So, if your wife says, "I'm going to cut your penis off if you leave the toilet seat up anymore," you only have yourself to blame for her actions next Thursday?

    In addition, a lot of people already had played with their phones before Apple issued any kind of warnings. And, I'm sure that more than a few who had intended not to update hit the 'ok' button out of habit, or because they weren't thinking one morning, or maybe their roommate did it, etc.

    It would've been very easy (listening to those who wrote the 3rd party sw and unlocks) for Apple to craft the update such that those with unlocked phones had perfectly functioning, re-locked phones when they came out on the other side.

  10. #30
    Guest Array izim1's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    108
    Post Thanks / Like
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fishbert View Post
    You said: "you dont seem to understand that apple has made it pretty clear that the iphone is for use with at&t only."
    This is not a justification for bricking iPhones owned by people who apply non-destructive software methods of going against this desire. Just because Apple says, "for use on AT&T only," doesn't mean they have the right to reach in to your phone and kill it if the owner strays from AT&T. Apple is not God of my (or anyone else's) iPhone. I say you aren't listening, because this has been pointed out already earlier in this thread.


    You look at what the update does. You look at what the update does not do. You consider that SJ has stated that the company will actively combat unlocking. You look at what the hacks/unlocks did. You look at what the hacks/unlocks did not do. You consider that the authors of the hacks/unlocks have said about the reversibility of their efforts.

    It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the iBrick situation could have been easily avoided in the crafting of this update. Again, I'm not a legal expert, and I don't know if they violated any laws in any of this update stuff (and I'm sure you don't know their legal status either). But I do know that a class-action suit would not be the kind of press Apple wants, that pissing off a number of iPhone enthusiasts is not what Apple wants, that all this could have been avoided with a very small amount of effort, and that the outcry against their actions was completely predictable. This amounts to an incentive on Apple's part to make the small investment of time and energy to preserve the good name of their company and keep their paying customers happy. So why didn't they do this? The logical conclusion would appear to be that they wanted to make an example out of those who strayed from their commandment of, "for use on AT&T only." And, making an example out of someone sure sounds to me like "malicious intent" (as you put it).

    The legal status of what has happened seems fairly gray. If a group feels strongly enough to press the issue in a class-action suit, they certainly have the right to do so -- resolving the legal status of gray issues is exactly what our court system is for.
    fishbert your still not getting it are you? let me see if i can simplify this more for you: IM NOT TALKING ABOUT A THE FRIGGING WARRANTY !!!!!!!! AT ALL!!!! im referring to "997tt" frequent posts that apple shouldnt be allowed to "freely sell" the iphones on their retail stores and that it should somehow be illegal because some people dont have enough sense to know that you cant use the phone on other networks!! THATS WHAT MY "APPLE HAS MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT AT&T" POST WAS ABOUT!
    geeeeeeez. i try not to loose my cool but dang it! it's ridiculous sometimes. how many times do i have to repeat that i know for a fact apple cant void the damn warranty?
    and as for the intention, no dude, you cant prove that he maliciously bricked iphones. especially not when A) he can show that the anysim apps themselves "bricked"plenty of phones on their own. which apple lawyers will say proves that the hacks were unstable to begin with and ,more importantly, B) you have the quotes all over the papers of apple advising and warning about NOT UPGRADING YOUR DAMN THING IF YOUVE HACKED IT!. "yes your honor he gave no warning...."


 

 
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-07-2010, 02:00 AM
  2. MacNN: Bell Canada hit with class-action throttling lawsuit
    By hackint0sh in forum Latest Headlines
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2008, 07:20 PM
  3. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-04-2007, 10:57 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-26-2007, 10:03 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-28-2007, 04:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO
(c) 2006-2012 Hackint0sh.org
All times are GMT +2. The time now is 09:21 AM.
twitter, follow us!