Filing Lawsuit Against Apple - Please Read

[SilverTard]

The machine was sold as a 64 bit machine. Apple didn't say at the time, 'This part is 64 bit, this bit over here isn't".

If they had, you might have a point but they didn't. Now they're saying that we can't run ML because the machine isn't 64 bit. The computer didn't change, Apple's story did.

THANK YOU. This is my entire point.

Apple will have a tough time explaining, in court to a jury, why selling it as a 64-Bit Computer didn't really mean it was ALL 64-Bit but a 64-Bit processor but didn't bother to DISCLOSE that material fact. I mean seriously. Apple: Yes, we sold it as a 64-Bit computer but it won't run our new operating system that REQUIRES a 64-Bit computer because, ah, well, it has some 32-Bit hardware limitations, but it is a 64-Bit computer.

Huh? lol

 

[chromafile]

Did you actually read your post? The entire reason I learned about this LIMITATION was it was EXPOSED when I went to UPGRADE my OS.

That is how I came to find out about what Apple did and that was to LIE about the insides of this computer. It is NOT a FULLY FUNCTIONAL 64-BIT SYSTEM as they ADVERTISED it to be when the SOLD IT TO ME.

You've been using it with 32-bit OS since day one.
You were exposed this limitation when Snow Leopard was released.
You didn't know or you knew but didn't care or what?

 

[Rog210]

You've been using it with 32-bit OS since day one.
You were exposed this limitation when Snow Leopard was released.
You didn't know or you knew but didn't care or what?

It became an issue when Apple used it as an excuse to EOL the machine.

 

[SilverTard]

Still complaining about not being able to upgrade to Mountain Lion? And it's a wonder why I say it is just you being mad about not being able to upgrade to the latest OS vs actually caring about how Apple lied about your machine being a fully 64-bit machine?

Would you be complaining and suing Apple if your Mac Pro was able to upgrade to Mountain Lion?

I don't know. Probably not because it is this move they made that exposed their prior lies.

Like it or not selling a computer as a 64-Bit product would cause anyone with a reasonable expectation to believe it would run a 64-Bit OS. I mean you need a 64-Bit machine to run a 64-Bit version of Windows. Why would it be any different with a Mac?

Problem here is APPLE sells the Hardware.. they FORCE you to use their hardware. I now basically have a "64-Bit" paperweight because Apple did not disclose to me, when their sales people were more than happy to sell me a $8000.00 computer, that in fact the "64-Bit" computer they were selling to me actually could not run a 64-Bit OS.

I am STUCK with Lion. Period. Why? Because Apple made a decision to abandon people that spent THOUSANDS of dollars for a computer with an expectation that they would provide software support.

Do you understand I can not upgrade my machine anymore, right? I am FORCED to stay with an old operating system with NO HOPE of ever being able to upgrade it. They also have now impacted the resale value of my computer because who will want to buy a computer that can no longer be upgraded? What do I do hide it from someone that doesn't know better and F them over too? Not in my character.

Sure it is only ONE OS LEVEL out of date now, but what happens with the next release and the next? Eventually App writers will be making new software only compatible with the new OSs.

So what happened to me? I GOT ********* by Apple, that is what.

Basically they have said: "Hey, thanks for being an early adopter of our products. Our reward to you for doing so is to turn your $8000.00 computer into a boat anchor as our operating systems will no longer support your computer. So sorry. Thank you so much for supporting Apple, too bad we don't give a rats ass about you."

 

[astrorider]

1.) Don't you have to show an economic loss as a result of not being able to upgrade to 10.8 in order to win a lawsuit?

2.) Where specifically does Apple mention that the reason Mountain Lion doesn't run on the Mac Pro 1,1 is because it has a 32-bit EFI? Without that they can argue they just ended support for old hardware they've decided to no longer support like they do in every OS release, and has nothing to do with false advertising.

 

[Kashsystems]

Hey question, when your "lawyer brother" and you sit down and figure this out, can you explain your damages where because you were not allowed to pay for this 20 dollar software upgrade?

When apple shows that this is a 64 bit processor and gets industry experts to come out and all equally state this is a 64 bit system, what happens to your case? No judge is going to sit there and side with you about false advertising, nor will any judge come out and state that Apple is required to support your older hardware with a newer operating system.

I honestly think this is one of the best trolling efforts I have seen in a while but if this is not, I want to see the look on their faces when Apple counter sues them for legal fees.

 

[chromafile]

It became an issue when Apple used it as an excuse to EOL the machine.

No new OS doesn't mean Mac Pro 1.1 is EOL. Lion is still supported.
My friends still use Leopard or Snow Leopard for their jobs.
I still have Snow Leopard as a backup system just in case.

Does Apple force you to upgrade every OS?
Do you think Apple should support your Mac until you get a new one?
Is Apple's decision up to you?

 

[Rog210]

No new OS doesn't mean Mac Pro 1.1 is EOL.

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what it means.

 

[SilverTard]

No new OS doesn't mean Mac Pro 1.1 is EOL. Lion is still supported.
My friends still use Leopard or Snow Leopard for their jobs.
I still have Snow Leopard as a backup system just in case.

Does Apple force you to upgrade every OS?
Do you think Apple should support your Mac until you get a new one?
Is Apple's decision up to you?

They sold me a 64-Bit computer than any REASONABLE consumer would believe will run a 64-Bit OS. In fact, it can not.

Yes, I have a good case. They will not left this get before a jury, I guarantee you.

----------

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what it means.

Sure does.

 

[quagmire]

I don't know. Probably not because it is this move they made that exposed their prior lies.

Welcome to marketing 101. Apple isn't forced to disclose the full facts of your machine. As long as parts of the computer is 64-bit, Apple can sell it as a 64-bit machine. They did that with the G5 and did that with your Mac Pro.

Like it or not selling a computer as a 64-Bit product would cause anyone with a reasonable expectation to believe it would run a 64-Bit OS. I mean you need a 64-Bit machine to run a 64-Bit version of Windows. Why would it be any different with a Mac?

Because Apple doesn't operate like Microsoft? Like I said even if your machine was fully 64-bit, Apple could still EOL'd your machine if they wanted to and dropped support for it for Mountain Lion. It's in their power to do so. They don't have an obligation to keep supporting your 6 year old machine.

Problem here is APPLE sells the Hardware.. they FORCE you to use their hardware. I now basically have a "64-Bit" paperweight because Apple did not disclose to me, when their sales people were more than happy to sell me a $8000.00 computer, that in fact the "64-Bit" computer they were selling to me actually could not run a 64-Bit OS.

Apple is a hardware company. Their business model is selling hardware. Their profits come from selling hardware. The software helps sells the hardware. Want legacy machines to run the latest OS? Switch to Windows since MS makes their money selling software so they profit off of supporting 6+ year old machines.

There is no problem. Apple didn't force you to buy anything. You knew that buying a Mac meant buying Apple hardware. Wanted to buy a Dell? Stay with Windows. How did your machine become a paperweight? It will still be able to run the latest software( besides ML of course). There is still new software that can run on Leopard( just as long as the hardware also meets the minimum requirements). You will still be able to do the same amount of work you did when Lion was still the latest OS.

I am STUCK with Lion. Period. Why? Because Apple made a decision to abandon people that spent THOUSANDS of dollars for a computer with an expectation that they would provide software support.

And they did for 6 years when they were not obligated to do so.

Do you understand I can not upgrade my machine anymore, right? I am FORCED to stay with an old operating system with NO HOPE of ever being able to upgrade it. They also have now impacted the resale value of my computer because who will want to buy a computer that can no longer be upgraded? What do I do hide it from someone that doesn't know better and F them over too? Not in my character.

Again welcome to Apple. They don't support older machines forever like Microsoft does. Eventually you will not be able to upgrade to the latest version of OS X. I fully anticipate my Early 2008 MBP not being able to upgrade to 10.9.

Sure it is only ONE OS LEVEL out of date now, but what happens with the next release and the next? Eventually App writers will be making new software only compatible with the new OSs.

By that time, your machine would be beyond out of date that your hardware won't be able to run the software anymore. Not the fact you're still on Lion.

Basically they have said: "Hey, thanks for being an early adopter of our products. Our reward to you for doing so is to turn your $8000.00 computer into a boat anchor as our operating systems will no longer support your computer. So sorry. Thank you so much for supporting Apple, too bad we don't give a rats ass about you."

How were you an early adopter? My 12" Powerbook G4 and 20" iMac G5 can't operate above Leopard( since Snow Leopard dropped PPC support).

 

[SilverTard]

Welcome to marketing 101. Apple isn't forced to disclose the full facts of your machine. As long as parts of the computer is 64-bit, Apple can sell it as a 64-bit machine. They did that with the G5 and did that with your Mac Pro.



Because Apple doesn't operate like Microsoft? Like I said even if your machine was fully 64-bit, Apple could still EOL'd your machine if they wanted to and dropped support for it for Mountain Lion. It's in their power to do so. They don't have an obligation to keep supporting your 6 year old machine.



Apple is a hardware company. Their business model is selling hardware. Their profits come from selling hardware. The software helps sells the hardware. Want legacy machines to run the latest machines? Switch to Windows since MS makes their money selling software so they profit off of supporting 6+ year old machines.

There is no problem. Apple didn't force you to buy anything. You knew that buying a Mac meant buying Apple hardware. Wanted to buy a Dell? Stay with Windows. How did your machine become a paperweight? It will still be able to run the latest software( besides ML of course). There is still new software that can run on Leopard( just as long as the hardware also meets the minimum requirements). You will still be able to do the same amount of work you did when Lion was still the latest OS.



And they did for 6 years when they were not obligated to do so.



Again welcome to Apple. They don't support older machines forever like Microsoft does. Eventually you will not be able to upgrade to the latest version of OS X. I fully anticipate my Early 2008 MBP not being able to upgrade to 10.9.




By that time, your machine would be beyond out of date that your hardware won't be able to run the software anymore. Not the fact you're still on Lion.




How were you an early adopter? My 12" Powerbook G4 and 20" iMac G5 can't operate above Leopard( since Snow Leopard dropped PPC support).

Watch and see how this goes down. If they don't solve this problem I will become an advocate for everyone that got screwed over. It will be far more to their advantage to make me happy and fix this problem than for me to turn into an advocate and raise total hell. I am not going away.

 

[belvdr]

Everyone cover your ears. One person is about to scream and take out Apple.

 

[Rog210]

Everyone cover your ears. One person is about to scream and take out Apple.

Sure, there's a lot of hyperbole here but the point about Apple misrepresenting their product at the time of sale is valid.

 

[snberk103]

I'm very interested to see how this pans out. Keep us updated OP and best of luck.

Yes, me too. Just out of curiosity as I have a Mac Pro 3,1...

I have to admit I just skimmed this thread, so may have missed it... but can you link to the spot where Apple says that the MP 1,1 won't be supported due to it not being totally 64 bit? As I understand it, and unlike some of the other posters here, I agree that if your case is successful your 'damages' will be the cost of a 64 bit system, not the $19.99 ML upgrade cost.

Good Luck.

THANK YOU. This is my entire point.

Apple will have a tough time explaining, in court to a jury, why selling it as a 64-Bit Computer didn't really mean it was ALL 64-Bit but a 64-Bit processor but didn't bother to DISCLOSE that material fact. I mean seriously. Apple: Yes, we sold it as a 64-Bit computer but it won't run our new operating system that REQUIRES a 64-Bit computer because, ah, well, it has some 32-Bit hardware limitations, but it is a 64-Bit computer.

Huh? lol

If Apple in fact used the 32 bit EFI as a reason, that was really sloppy on Apple's part. There are all sorts of reasons they could have used to not support a MP 1,1 with ML, which may or may not have been legitimate. But to use a 'feature' that was marketed is just sloppy.

------

Any reason you didn't go through small claims court? Seems to me you could have had an easier time in small claims, and gotten something from Apple just because it would have been cheaper than defending a case in a court that doesn't give high-priced lawyers an edge.

 

[Rog210]

Yes, me too. Just out of curiosity as I have a Mac Pro 3,1...

I have to admit I just skimmed this thread, so may have missed it... but can you link to the spot where Apple says that the MP 1,1 won't be supported due to it not being totally 64 bit? As I understand it, and unlike some of the other posters here, I agree that if your case is successful your 'damages' will be the cost of a 64 bit system, not the $19.99 ML upgrade cost.

I'd love to get a definitive statement from Apple. Some say it's the EFI, some say that there are no 64 bit drivers for the GFX cards that originally shipped. If the latter is the case, why isn't Apple offering ML to 1,1 and 1,2 owners with the proviso that the card must be upgraded? I have a 6870 in mine so I should be good to go.

 

[belvdr]

Sure, there's a lot of hyperbole here but the point about Apple misrepresenting their product at the time of sale is valid.

Meh, it ran 64-bit apps just fine and that's enough to qualify being a 64-bit system. You cannot realistically expect your machine to be supported for every new OS that comes out.

 

[chromafile]

Yes, that's pretty much exactly what it means.

Really? Then what kind of problems are you gonna face if you can't upgrade to Mountain Lion?

and you didn't answer my questions.

Does Apple force you to upgrade every OS?
Do you think Apple should support your Mac until you get a new one?
Is Apple's decision up to you?

 

[Rog210]

Really? Then what kind of problems are you gonna face if you can't upgrade to Mountain Lion?

and you didn't answer my questions.

Does Apple force you to upgrade every OS?
Do you think Apple should support your Mac until you get a new one?
Is Apple's decision up to you?

I didn't answer your question because they're irrelevant and frankly, rather stupid.

 

[entatlrg]

After speaking with my lawyer (who happens to be my brother) I have decided to file a lawsuit against Apple for fraud. When I purchased my Mac Pro (which is a Mac Pro 1,1) it was represented that it was a 64-bit system, not a 64-bit system with 32-bit limitations.

I am now prevented from being able to upgrade my 64-bit machine to the 64-bit only operating system, Mountain Lion, due to a policy decision made by Apple AND fraud by misrepresenting the capabilities of this machine when it was sold to me. I feel that I have the right to receive what was represented to me, a 64-bit system. Nice way to try to force hardware sales Apple.

We have not yet decided if we wish to make this a class action (which it is looking like we might but there are some requirements my brother is still looking into) to seek relief for all of us that were mislead or if I am doing this as an individual action.

If you are interested in participating in this action with me if I decide to do this as a non class action suit please PM me so I have contact information for you in the future.

This should not be that expensive of a suit because I have all of the old Apple website pages from the time period and other advertising they submitted. It all pushed the Mac Pro as a fully functional 64-bit system. It is a very focused lawsuit with very limited claims. I will carry the burden of the cost of the suit and am not looking for money from you.

Apple, I am very disappointed with your company. Now I guess your business model permits for false advertising and misleading your customers. I have decided I am not going to take this without a fight. I have owned (and still do except for the iPhone) 3 iPhones, 2 iPads, a Macbook Pro, a Mac Pro and a Apple TV. I have been a good customer but now I am feeling very taken advantage of and I am very disappointed. I paid for a 64-bit functioning system not a non-functional 32-bit/64-bit hybrid.

You joined the forum just to post this? LOL

Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[Rog210]

Meh, it ran 64-bit apps just fine and that's enough to qualify being a 64-bit system. You cannot realistically expect your machine to be supported for every new OS that comes out.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a 64 bit system?

Apple shot themselves in the foot by not making clear what they meant by "64 bit" at the time of sale. Now they're saying the MP isn't 64 bit. Which is it?

If they had advertising along of the lines of
"Buy the new 64 bit* Mac Pro!!!!

(*contains 32 bit EFI, kernel, GFX drivers)"

then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on here.

But they didn't.

 

[chromafile]

They sold me a 64-Bit computer than any REASONABLE consumer would believe will run a 64-Bit OS. In fact, it can not.

It can though it's not official.
You just try not to search and learn stuff all over the Internet.

 

[belvdr]

Who gets to decide what constitutes a 64 bit system?

That's a rather weird question. If you're seriously asking, then there are other issues at hand.

Apple shot themselves in the foot by not making clear what they meant by "64 bit" at the time of sale. Now they're saying the MP isn't 64 bit. Which is it?

If they had advertising along of the lines of
"Buy the new 64 bit* Mac Pro!!!!

(*contains 32 bit EFI, kernel, GFX drivers)"

then we wouldn't have a leg to stand on here.

But they didn't.

They're not saying it isn't a 64-bit system.

 

[amoulay]

All of these posts about "suing" Apple over the Mac Pro 1,1. Question, when did Apple promise that they would support the Mac Pro 1,1 (or 2,1 for that matter) for eternity? When is it okay to stop supporting computer hard ware (since you seem to know better than Apple). Apple never stated it would support the Mac Pro 1,1 for 6+ years in writing did they? If you have that somewhere, please show us! If you can show where it states in writing they will support the Mac Pro 1,1 for 10 years, I will vote you up in a heart beat. Until then, there is no basis for this lawsuit... Just a disgruntled consumer who wants to tie up our courts in more frivolous lawsuits.

I am now convinced that you are an Apple implant here, an agent whose job is to push for Apple's interests. I hope I am wrong, but your statements speak for themselves.

I say action suit now. We have legitimate grounds on which to hold Apple by its neck and bring it down, at least for the 1,1 32/64 bit misleading claims.

 

[Rog210]

You said, "Meh, it ran 64-bit apps just fine and that's enough to qualify being a 64-bit system."

That's a rather weird question. If you're seriously asking, then there are other issues at hand.


They're not saying it isn't a 64-bit system.

Oh, I guess I'll just go and install ML then.

Oh wait, "We could not complete your purchase. OS X Mountain Lion is not compatible with this computer."

Damn ...

 

[belvdr]

You said, "Meh, it ran 64-bit apps just fine and that's enough to qualify being a 64-bit system."

And you questioned who can determine that. Your question is weird. My opinion is that since it can run 64-bit applications, it is a 64-bit system.

Oh, I guess I'll just go and install ML then.

Oh wait, "We could not complete your purchase. OS X Mountain Lion is not compatible with this computer."

Damn ...

Being incompatible does not mean your system isn't a 64-bit system. I'm assuming you would also argue that all iPod Touch owners (myself included) should sue Apple since we cannot load the latest iOS.