Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Florida Lawyer Sues Apple for Renting HD Movies on Non-HD Devices

S

sclawis300

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,472
196
j4zb4 said:
But the apps you buy on the phone you use on the phone... If I buy/rent a movie from my iPhone I can download it on my mac and on my iPad and on my PC... I can even stream it to my HDTV with AirPlay...
Click to expand...

the point was that you don't necessarily use the thing you purchase on the device you purchase it with. ie, you rent a movie on your iphone/ipad watch it on apple tv (I assume this is possible). My point was I thought it was more likely that you will watch something you rent on the device on which you actually rent the item in question. The issue was brought up that you can't see ipad only apps on your iphone.

Your statement holds true for ipad apps as well, if I buy it with my iphone I can see it on my ipad. So why can't I see iPad apps on my iPhone?

(I concede that it got way more confusing based on the way I presented the argument without linking to all the quotes.)
 
BaldiMac

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,757
10,888
sclawis300 said:
Your statement holds true for ipad apps as well, if I buy it with my iphone I can see it on my ipad. So why can't I see iPad apps on my iPhone?
Click to expand...

The difference is that with movies there is a fallback for the device that it is purchased on (SD version). For iPad only apps, you can't use (or even download them) on your iPhone at all.
 
gnasher729

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
designs216 said:
Come on guy! You did something stupid -- take personal responsibility!

This reminds me of that lady that spilled the hot coffee she was unwisely clutching between her knees, then went after McD's for damages. I cannot believe juries pay people no matter how frivolous the suit.
Click to expand...

Actually, she just tried to get paid the cost of her medical treatment of $24,000. When a jury heard the actual facts (700 similar cases settled out of court, and McDonald's still selling scalding hot coffee) they raised the damages to millions of dollars, which the judge then reduced to several hundred thousand.
 
j4zb4

j4zb4

macrumors 6502a
Oct 15, 2011
733
0
gnasher729 said:
People make mistakes. I often buy coffee, put it on a tray, carry it to a table. I'm notoriously careful, always carry it so it won't go on top of people if I drop it. There's probably a one in ten thousand chance that I would spill coffee on some person.

One in ten thousand means coffee gets spilled over an awful lot of people every year. Totally unavoidable. Now if that coffee is scalding hot, lots of people will be scalded. Scalding hot is the difference between annoyance and possibly lengthy hospital visit.

However, if a company's management is aware of this... and had literally hundreds of cases against them settled out of court... and continues serving dangerously hot coffee, because they offer free refills and scalding hot coffee means nobody takes them up on that offer which saves money... more money than they paid out to victims of that policy... then clearly the payouts must be made higher to stop them.
Click to expand...

Every year there are a lot of accidents at high speeds in exotic cars... Yes it's Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, Pagani's fault... They shouldn't make such fast cars... Bad corporates I tell you...

sclawis300 said:
the point was that you don't necessarily use the thing you purchase on the device you purchase it with. ie, you rent a movie on your iphone/ipad watch it on apple tv (I assume this is possible). My point was I thought it was more likely that you will watch something you rent on the device on which you actually rent the item in question. The issue was brought up that you can't see ipad only apps on your iphone.

Your statement holds true for ipad apps as well, if I buy it with my iphone I can see it on my ipad. So why can't I see iPad apps on my iPhone?

(I concede that it got way more confusing based on the way I presented the argument without linking to all the quotes.)
Click to expand...

AFAIK some apps are common... i.e. the same app works on both... Whereas some apps are made only for the iPad and they are won't run on the iPhone...


gnasher729 said:
Actually, she just tried to get paid the cost of her medical treatment of $24,000. When a jury heard the actual facts (700 similar cases settled out of court, and McDonald's still selling scalding hot coffee) they raised the damages to millions of dollars, which the judge then reduced to several hundred thousand.
Click to expand...

$24,000 to cure a burn...? You've got to be kidding me... You could get an angiography done with that much money...

And she shouldn't have been clutching it with her knees anyways... Especially while driving...

Next I'll try to eat through my nose and sue the restaurant when I choke...
 
BaldiMac

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,757
10,888
j4zb4 said:
$24,000 to cure a burn...? You've got to be kidding me... You could get an angiography done with that much money...
Click to expand...

She looked to settle for $20,000. Eight days in the hospital, skin grafts, two years of physical therapy, and $5,000 for loss of income. Not that outrageous.

And she shouldn't have been clutching it with her knees anyways... Especially while driving...
Click to expand...

She wasn't driving. She was parked in the passenger seat adding cream and sugar. And the award was specifically reduced because she shared fault.
 
S

sclawis300

macrumors 65816
Apr 22, 2010
1,472
196
j4zb4 said:
AFAIK some apps are common... i.e. the same app works on both... Whereas some apps are made only for the iPad and they are won't run on the iPhone...
Click to expand...

That is the point of the suit. You can buy it but cant use it. You can't by apps on the iphone that you cannot use on an iphone. My point was that you buy an app and it is linked to your itunes account. If you later pick up a different device you can then download it to that device.

For example. Some iPad only game is FREE for one day only. Unfortunately I don't have my iPad with me because I am on the road. I would like to purchase it with my iPhone but I can't because it is iPad only. I think if you can rent a movie that is unwatchable, under the argument that you can watch it on another device, then you should be able to download an app using the same theory.

j4zb4 said:
$24,000 to cure a burn...? You've got to be kidding me... You could get an angiography done with that much money...

And she shouldn't have been clutching it with her knees anyways... Especially while driving...

Next I'll try to eat through my nose and sue the restaurant when I choke...
Click to expand...

Have you ever had skin grafts? or stayed in the hospital for multiple days? It is not cheap. I wouldn't go judging someone if you don't know all the facts.
 
BaldiMac

BaldiMac

macrumors G3
Jan 24, 2008
8,757
10,888
sclawis300 said:
That is the point of the suit. You can buy it but cant use it. You can't by apps on the iphone that you cannot use on an iphone. My point was that you buy an app and it is linked to your itunes account. If you later pick up a different device you can then download it to that device.

For example. Some iPad only game is FREE for one day only. Unfortunately I don't have my iPad with me because I am on the road. I would like to purchase it with my iPhone but I can't because it is iPad only. I think if you can rent a movie that is unwatchable, under the argument that you can watch it on another device, then you should be able to download an app using the same theory.
Click to expand...

An HD movie was more like a Universal app. The SD version was included for SD devices.
 
Gasu E.

Gasu E.

macrumors 603
Mar 20, 2004
5,033
3,150
Not far from Boston, MA.
j4zb4 said:
And she shouldn't have been clutching it with her knees anyways... Especially while driving...
Click to expand...

She was not driving. She was a passenger in a parked car.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe a food should be sold that can cause third-degree burns, requiring skin grafts, in two to seven seconds, even if you decide to take a bath in it. This is just crazy. McDs claimed during the trial that they knew it was dangerously hot, but that no one drinks their coffee right away, so that it always cools down. Clearly, this is bogus. Now, in my personal experieince, McDs coffee made my lips blister and my upper palate peel. Perhaps, in your view, it was my fault for doing something stupid such as "drinking" it using my "mouth." Of course, I just ended up just doing the smart thing after that and stopped buying their wretched product.
 
Last edited:
L

larrybeo

macrumors regular
Jul 8, 2008
130
0
Chicago
Nice Lawsuit!

I agree with this. I think this is absurd they would offer these options for the non-HD devices. Now if someone could please help me decide if my iPad Mini is an HD display or not? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom