Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Filing Lawsuit Against Apple - Please Read
- Thread starter SilverTard
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
If this is the right thing, I support you to do it. Some people just sit around and do nothing. Some people can't really distinguish what is right and wrong. Best of luck.
Exactly. Apple has never stated this, and that's why the false advertising claim is no more than someone whose upset their 6 yr old computer isn't supported by the latest OS.
No it wasn't. The OS running on it weren't fully 64 bit. Leopard ran a 32 bit kernel and 32 bit userland with the ability to run 64 bit software. Snow Leopard changed it a little by running a 32 bit kernel (and 64 bit later on, on some machines from 2010) with a 64 bit userland and the ability to run 32 bit software as well. Lion changed it by running a 64 bit kernel by default on most machines, 32 bit on some and a 64 bit userland with the ability to run 32 bit software as well. Mountain Lion continues that but removes the 32 bit kernel. It still is able to run 32 bit software and thus is not a proper 64 bit OS.
And nor is the hardware. If you dive into the specs a little bit deeper you'll see that part is 8 bit, part is 16 bit, part is 32 bit and part is 64 bit or even 128 bit.
In other words, the entire lawsuit is completely wrong. You can't sue them for Mountain Lion because of Leopard, Snow Leopard and Lion. Also, the fact that you didn't sue immediately but knowingly waited for the OS version that dropped support for your machine does not speak for your case. It is not in your advantage.
The problem with it all is how you define 64 bit because like I said some parts are and some parts aren't. Intel defines it differently than what we know from the DEC Alpha (a proper 64 bit machine). If we compare it to the SPARC 64 architecture from Sun (and others) we see similarities to the 64 bitness of the x86 platform from Intel.
But, the problem in this is that Apple does not say anything about why certain models aren't supported. It is the Apple community that does this and thus the case is solely based on rumours and the like. Apple has only listed the supported models. A good read on this would be an article from Arstechnica:
Confirmed: Mountain Lion sends some 64-bit Macs gently into that good night. There you can read the following:
Yes you read that right: Apple denies telling anything about why so they speculate.
To avoid this coming law suit of the century, all Apple engineers and ML code writers had to do was to write this simple code procedure in the core of ML:
if it's a newer mac, install, launch and execute ML,
if it's a Mac 1,1 2006, install, launch execute ML also , comment: * to avoid law suit*,
or else do this, install launch and execute,
Sarcasm aside, you see folks and Appleboys; it's as simple as that.
if it's a newer mac, install, launch and execute ML,
if it's a Mac 1,1 2006, install, launch execute ML also , comment: * to avoid law suit*,
or else do this, install launch and execute,
Sarcasm aside, you see folks and Appleboys; it's as simple as that.
reductio ad absurdum
The point here is that there needed to be a transition from 32-bit to 64-bit. At some point consumer confidence had to be built that they purchased on the right side of the transition.
It's simple. If Apple provided adequate warning that the 64-bit Mac Pro had some potential liabilities then they're free. If they provided no clue about it then the plaintiff has at the least an arguable case.
I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.
If they provided no clue, then there's nothing to argue since Apple didn't guarantee anything (which they didn't).
People are so sue happy in todays age.
I am going to go sue mcDonalds because I ordered a double cheeseburger and it only came with one patty.
I am going to go sue mcDonalds because I ordered a double cheeseburger and it only came with one patty.
You might have read this already but:https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15336578#post15336578
might be useful for you.
I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.
If they provided no clue, then there's nothing to argue since Apple didn't guarantee anything (which they didn't).
Of course you are not sure.
What I am trying to say is, it's all in the code. Whatever code they wrote for ML, they omitted support for 1,1. They can rectify the shot by adding code for 1,1 that's it, as simply as that. If Chameleon can hack a 1,1 into ML capability, well, the appleboys can simply add the chameleon code to ML program.
----------
I suggest you rather sue MacDo because you choked on that patty out of frustration it was not a Cheesb...
those are people who drum it up for Apple. They get the best perks from Apple, VIP seats to Apple conferences, free hotel rooms, Jacuzzi and private jets. Not to mention, free softies and free hardware... just so they can invade forums such as this one and boast the 1000 and 1 merits of Apple.
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just revealing your ignorance.
Why do you believe that? I've never received anything free from Apple that the public didn't receive.
Good conspiracy theory though.
If your brother has won lots of lawsuits against huge corporations already, then go for it.
If he hasn't, this isn't going to be the case than turns it around for him. Or you.
I'm not an expert on the hardware and the claims that were made, nor am I an expert on the law, but just as a layman... I don't see anything "laughable" about this hypothetical lawsuit.
OP is stating that Apple made a claim that the product they sold him was one thing and the OP is now claiming that was not the case. If that is true, Apple might have a problem. It is up to the OP to prove it.
Keep us posted.
I haven't read the entire thread, but the people who are posting things like "the system is 6 years old, you were never guaranteed hardware support for this long anyways" clearly don't get it. That's not what the lawsuit is about. If he was promised 10 years of OS upgrades, then that'd be a separate issue. The issue is he is claiming he was sold a fully operational 64 bit system that is not a fully operational 64 bit system. The number of years of support Apple offers is irrelevant.
OP is stating that Apple made a claim that the product they sold him was one thing and the OP is now claiming that was not the case. If that is true, Apple might have a problem. It is up to the OP to prove it.
Keep us posted.
I haven't read the entire thread, but the people who are posting things like "the system is 6 years old, you were never guaranteed hardware support for this long anyways" clearly don't get it. That's not what the lawsuit is about. If he was promised 10 years of OS upgrades, then that'd be a separate issue. The issue is he is claiming he was sold a fully operational 64 bit system that is not a fully operational 64 bit system. The number of years of support Apple offers is irrelevant.
1,1 Guys:
when Apple thinks it has the right to SUE Samsung because they feel Samsung stole their ipad design, it gives us the full right to sue Apple because they stole our trust with their misleading tactics and lies about how they presented and marketed 1,1 machine 6 years ago, only to tell us today that our 1,1 are "haz beenz" and obsolete.
I suggest we team up with Samsung in this law suit. U know the good old adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
when Apple thinks it has the right to SUE Samsung because they feel Samsung stole their ipad design, it gives us the full right to sue Apple because they stole our trust with their misleading tactics and lies about how they presented and marketed 1,1 machine 6 years ago, only to tell us today that our 1,1 are "haz beenz" and obsolete.
I suggest we team up with Samsung in this law suit. U know the good old adage: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Agreed, but the issue is he claims Apple's not supporting his model because of 64-bit compatibility. In fact, they never gave a reason why (at least none that I can find).
It's an obsolete machine, not a current model. Every computer has an end-of-support date. This model is long past it, so what do you expect?
In essence, you're saying you want to sue Apple because they won't support a model that is past its support date.
Seeing as though the OP said this: "I don't know. Probably not because it is this move they made that exposed their prior lies" when asked if he would still be suing if his computer ran ML, I think it does.
- Status