G3/Mac OS X Settlement

MacRumors · 04:49 PM

ZDNet reports that there has been preliminary approval on a settlement for a class-action suit based on claim that "the company had failed to fully support Mac OS X on some G3-based Macs".

Many readers noted that Apple had posted a link to the settlement site on their corporate homepage (Apple.com)

The settlement terms for affected G3 owners provide a refund for Mac OS X or a $25 coupon off a $99 purchase at the Apple Store. The G3 machine must have been specific models sold between Nov 1997 and Sept 2000 and Mac OS X must have been purchased on or before May 15, 2003. Details at settlement site.

FelixDerKater · 04:26 PM

It would have been funnier if they had to pay out the price nedded to upgrade to a least a low-end G4.

Either that or supply them all with acceptable graphics cards. Maybe 1st generation TiBook owners could sue for similar reasons on grounds that the included 8MB Rage128 Mobility does not allow OS X to be used to its fullest since it is not compatible with QuartzExtreme...

Le Big Mac · Oct 30, 2003, 04:26 PM

seems like a pretty reasonable settlement.

you get your money back if you don't like OS X.

Oirectine · Oct 30, 2003, 04:30 PM

There's a tiny link near the bottom of Apple.com's main page. I saw it today, didn't know what it was, thought I just hadn't noticed it before.

nagromme · 04:34 PM

Before there are a lot of ignorant posts about people--like me--who think this is a legitimate issue, please understand EXACTLY what the issue is BEFORE you make assumptions and post

This is about machines Apple DID claim to support, losing fundamental hardware capabilities that both the machines and the OS advertised as working.

Even Panther still doesn't tell me that I'll lose my video board if I install X. No hardware acceleration, no OpenGl, no DVD. Yet Apple still says my Lombard is supported by OS X.

What a lot of trouble a simply footnote could save. Or better yet, some drivers from ATI!

(This is not in reference to anything posted above--its a PREemptive strike against the inevitable flood of posts about machines Apple never CLAIMED to support. Which I have no problem with, and is not the subject of this case.)

reh · Oct 30, 2003, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macrumors
G3 machines must have been purchased on or before May 15, 2003.

Not true. From http://appleosx.rosenthalco.com/notice.html

Quote:

TO: ALL END USER PERSONS OR ENTITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WHO BOTH (1) OWN OR OWNED CERTAIN APPLE G3 COMPUTER MODELS SOLD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1997 AND SEPTEMBER 2000 ("COVERED PRODUCTS") AND (2) ALSO PURCHASED ANY VERSION OF MAC OS X FOR A COVERED PRODUCT ON OR BEFORE MAY 15, 2003:

ITR 81 · Oct 30, 2003, 04:42 PM

Well if they get a free OS out of it or refund it's not that bad of a deal.

The final outcome comes on Jan of 2004.

jayscheuerle · Oct 30, 2003, 04:44 PM

As long as this costs Apple more than it would have to write the damn drivers in the first place, it's fair.

$25 off a $99 purchase from the Apple Store? Apple's still making money off you!

At least they stated flat out that beige boxes and non-native USB laptops aren't supported in Panther, so even if a hack gets them to work, they're in the clear (for those machines at least)...

pgwalsh · Oct 30, 2003, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nagromme
Before there are a lot of ignorant posts about people--like me--who think this is a legitimate issue, please understand EXACTLY what the issue is BEFORE you make assumptions and post

This is about machines Apple DID claim to support, losing fundamental hardware capabilities that both the machines and the OS advertised as working.

Even Panther still doesn't tell me that I'll lose my video board if I install X. No hardware acceleration, no OpenGl, no DVD. Yet Apple still says my Lombard is supported by OS X.

What a lot of trouble a simply footnote could save. Or better yet, some drivers from ATI!

(This is not in reference to anything posted above--its a PREemptive strike against the inevitable flood of posts about machines Apple never CLAIMED to support. Which I have no problem with, and is not the subject of this case.)

I think Apple got away with a lot on this one. However, I can't think of a more reasonalbe solution. Maybe a fat discount on upgrading your machine if you send in your old one... Ha fat chance.

Phil Of Mac · Oct 30, 2003, 05:05 PM

IANAL, and neither are you.

Remember that before you post.

the_dalex · Oct 30, 2003, 05:29 PM

As a reseller, I received one of the class-action letters saying I am a participant unless I request exemption.

Interestingly, anyone who claims a refund from Apple has to make a declaration saying that they have not used OS X, under penalty of perjury:

"I have not regularly used Mac OS X on my Covered Product. I agree not to use Mac OS X on this computer in the future and I am returning the Mac OS X disk containing this version of Mac OS X to the address designated in the Claim Form. I agree not to reinstall the returned version of Mac OS X on my Covered Product in the future."

They also have to send in the discs, or declare that the discs are lost or destroyed. I'm amazed people are so upset about this, unless OS X doesn't run on their computer in any usable fashion. I'd give up DVD playback for OS X features any day...

besson3c · Oct 30, 2003, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FelixDerKater
It would have been funnier if they had to pay out the price nedded to upgrade to a least a low-end G4.

Either that or supply them all with acceptable graphics cards. Maybe 1st generation TiBook owners could sue for similar reasons on grounds that the included 8MB Rage128 Mobility does not allow OS X to be used to its fullest since it is not compatible with QuartzExtreme...

Is the first generation TiBook the 550Mhz machine? Those machines are actually QE enabled, I just discovered this today.

CraigMiami · Oct 30, 2003, 05:34 PM

lawsuit worthy? i think not. we live in a culture where it has become common place for people who if they're not getting what they want, when they want it, and how they want, or that they're getting screwed in any way, take it to court.
While i do agree that apple should have said those machines were *NOT* supported, i also think this lawsuit could be lumped with the overweight kids who sued McDonald's a few months ago because it caused them to be obese.
Lawsuits are not the way to solve all of our problems. Courts are not where all of our conflicts should be corrected.

jamesatzones · Oct 30, 2003, 05:35 PM

This would seem to be a good way to be black listed by Apple... My thought: if you are using a machine that can't run Panther, beige G3 or Wallstreet, (even though they a good machines) it's time to upgrade. Those machines don't even support USB, now an industry standard. You can pick up Blue and Whites for cheap on Ebay. Now, if the OS 9 holdout would just give in we would have a close to perfect Apple world...

the_dalex · Oct 30, 2003, 05:38 PM

I think it's ridiculous for people to expect that old systems will be able to take 100% advantage of new OS features. I also think Apple handled this badly, and should have just offered refunds to the affected people. This should never have gotten into a courtroom.

If OS X ran at 90% capacity, meaning 90% of the features worked as advertised, then I would be happy. Heck, in my opinion, 75% of OS X is much better than 100% of OS 9.

I don't know the history, did this guy try to get a software refund from Apple and was denied, then brought up the lawsuit? Or, did he go straight to the lawsuit to try to cash in?

pgwalsh · Oct 30, 2003, 05:40 PM

I think it's funny how everyone always sticks up for Apple even thought they're having to pay for something they did wrong.... Simple mistake.. but sheesh Mac people are so freaking protective... If this was MS.. you'd be all over them.. funny stuff.

prismfinder · Oct 30, 2003, 05:42 PM

I can't believe you people. Complaining that a 4mb, 8mb, or even 16mb video card isn't supported by a fully Open GL composited GUI...what are you thinking? And then having the nerve to tie-up our court systems (for which the public pays) and Apple's Attorney fees (for which all Mac users pay) all so you can have your little $25 gift certificate. PATHETIC! So what if Apple said your rinky-dink 3,4, or 5 year old machine would be supported...is it ever a good idea to install a state-of-the-art OS on a machine that's that old? I don't even try to get use out of sneakers that old and people are bitching about Open GL not working. I'll bet all you bitchers and moaners who actually cash in your gift certificate are the same ones who whine about Apple's prices. Thanks alot...all of us realists really appreciate the price hike on our next machines.

jamesatzones · Oct 30, 2003, 05:46 PM

Try running OS9 on a classic, like an SE or 512k, I think I should file a lawsuit because I have those machines sitting in my closet and I paid good cash for them.

The nerve some people have to waste the tax payers money on pointless lawsuits...

Phil Of Mac · Oct 30, 2003, 05:47 PM

It's amazing how many people who aren't lawyers and who haven't read the case in question feel like they can make better rulings than the judge and/or jury.

There's a reason we have courts and lawyers. They're not just a formality.

FelixDerKater · Oct 30, 2003, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by besson3c
Is the first generation TiBook the 550Mhz machine? Those machines are actually QE enabled, I just discovered this today.

No. the 550MHz is a Rev. B model.

They include a 16MB RADEON card, which allows for QE support...

prismfinder · Oct 30, 2003, 06:07 PM

-----------------------------------------------------
It's amazing how many people who aren't lawyers and who haven't read the case in question feel like they can make better rulings than the judge and/or jury.

There's a reason we have courts and lawyers. They're not just a formality-----------------------------------------

How do you know who is/is not a lawyer and who has/has not "read the case"...it's public domain you know. Besides, more than likely it was a bunch of luddite jurors who run Windows and know nothing about graphic subsystems that found Apple at fault. If the judge had thought Apple had truly screwed over it's customers, he would have mandated more than a $25 gift certificate. The jury system is a joke...they'll offer any jack-off with a bruised knee a settlement.

Lawyers and judges may know the law, but they generally don't know technology. Look at the Microsoft rulings that "ordered" them to load millions of classrooms with it's software.

Phil Of Mac · Oct 30, 2003, 06:14 PM

They must have read the case pretty damn fast

If they did read the case, that's fine, I'm not complaining about them.

And the jury system is as much of a joke as elections are.

sethypoo · Oct 30, 2003, 06:19 PM

That, and if you have a 6 year old system, isn't it time to upgrade?

Tuttle · Oct 30, 2003, 06:34 PM

Ok, so these folks have had their public tantrum.

Congrats. What a victory.

mrsebastian · Oct 30, 2003, 06:56 PM

is it just me or is this whole thing really silly?! i mean i'm all for getting a settlement when you get screwed, but come on. can i get a refund too, for trying to isntall osx on my old mac se?

what's really funny is that apple had to pay $350k to the blood-suckin' lawyers. they could have voluntarily put together a refund program that though i don't know the actual number of returns, probably would have cost apple half of that. while they're at it, they could have offered a refund or $100 towards any hardware purchase so people would be more inclined to upgrade.

Oct 30, 2003, 04:21 PM	#1
MacRumors macrumors bot Join Date: Apr 2001	G3/Mac OS X Settlement ZDNet reports that there has been preliminary approval on a settlement for a class-action suit based on claim that "the company had failed to fully support Mac OS X on some G3-based Macs". Many readers noted that Apple had posted a link to the settlement site on their corporate homepage (Apple.com) The settlement terms for affected G3 owners provide a refund for Mac OS X or a $25 coupon off a $99 purchase at the Apple Store. The G3 machine must have been specific models sold between Nov 1997 and Sept 2000 and Mac OS X must have been purchased on or before May 15, 2003. Details at settlement site. Last edited by arn : Oct 30, 2003 at 04:49 PM.

Oct 30, 2003, 04:24 PM	#2
FelixDerKater macrumors 65816 Join Date: Apr 2002	It would have been funnier if they had to pay out the price nedded to upgrade to a least a low-end G4. Either that or supply them all with acceptable graphics cards. Maybe 1st generation TiBook owners could sue for similar reasons on grounds that the included 8MB Rage128 Mobility does not allow OS X to be used to its fullest since it is not compatible with QuartzExtreme... Last edited by FelixDerKater : Oct 30, 2003 at 04:26 PM.

Oct 30, 2003, 04:30 PM	#5
nagromme macrumors 601 Join Date: May 2002 Location: Blinking blue dot	Before there are a lot of ignorant posts about people--like me--who think this is a legitimate issue, please understand EXACTLY what the issue is BEFORE you make assumptions and post This is about machines Apple DID claim to support, losing fundamental hardware capabilities that both the machines and the OS advertised as working. Even Panther still doesn't tell me that I'll lose my video board if I install X. No hardware acceleration, no OpenGl, no DVD. Yet Apple still says my Lombard is supported by OS X. What a lot of trouble a simply footnote could save. Or better yet, some drivers from ATI! (This is not in reference to anything posted above--its a PREemptive strike against the inevitable flood of posts about machines Apple never CLAIMED to support. Which I have no problem with, and is not the subject of this case.) __________________ nagromme Would you like a treatment? Last edited by nagromme : Oct 30, 2003 at 04:34 PM.

Oct 30, 2003, 04:44 PM	#8
jayscheuerle macrumors 68020 Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Right behind my eyeballs, around 2 inches back. Wet. Warm. Dark.	As long as this costs Apple more than it would have to write the damn drivers in the first place, it's fair. $25 off a $99 purchase from the Apple Store? Apple's still making money off you! At least they stated flat out that beige boxes and non-native USB laptops aren't supported in Panther, so even if a hack gets them to work, they're in the clear (for those machines at least)... __________________ 2006-The year I learn to shut my pie hole.

Oct 30, 2003, 05:40 PM	#16
pgwalsh macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Menlo Park, CA	I think it's funny how everyone always sticks up for Apple even thought they're having to pay for something they did wrong.... Simple mistake.. but sheesh Mac people are so freaking protective... If this was MS.. you'd be all over them.. funny stuff. __________________ My Widget: F@H WUdget My Business: KAHE Sparkling Nectars

Oct 30, 2003, 04:26 PM	#3
Le Big Mac macrumors 68010 Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Washington, DC	seems like a pretty reasonable settlement. you get your money back if you don't like OS X.

Oct 30, 2003, 04:30 PM	#4
Oirectine macrumors regular Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Wuxi, China	There's a tiny link near the bottom of Apple.com's main page. I saw it today, didn't know what it was, thought I just hadn't noticed it before.

Oct 30, 2003, 04:42 PM	#7
ITR 81 macrumors 65816 Join Date: Oct 2003	Well if they get a free OS out of it or refund it's not that bad of a deal. The final outcome comes on Jan of 2004.

Oct 30, 2003, 05:05 PM	#10
Phil Of Mac Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Washington State University	IANAL, and neither are you. Remember that before you post.

Oct 30, 2003, 05:29 PM	#11
the_dalex macrumors member Join Date: Sep 2003	As a reseller, I received one of the class-action letters saying I am a participant unless I request exemption. Interestingly, anyone who claims a refund from Apple has to make a declaration saying that they have not used OS X, under penalty of perjury: "I have not regularly used Mac OS X on my Covered Product. I agree not to use Mac OS X on this computer in the future and I am returning the Mac OS X disk containing this version of Mac OS X to the address designated in the Claim Form. I agree not to reinstall the returned version of Mac OS X on my Covered Product in the future." They also have to send in the discs, or declare that the discs are lost or destroyed. I'm amazed people are so upset about this, unless OS X doesn't run on their computer in any usable fashion. I'd give up DVD playback for OS X features any day...

Oct 30, 2003, 05:34 PM	#13
CraigMiami macrumors newbie Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: take a guess	lawsuit worthy? i think not. we live in a culture where it has become common place for people who if they're not getting what they want, when they want it, and how they want, or that they're getting screwed in any way, take it to court. While i do agree that apple should have said those machines were NOT supported, i also think this lawsuit could be lumped with the overweight kids who sued McDonald's a few months ago because it caused them to be obese. Lawsuits are not the way to solve all of our problems. Courts are not where all of our conflicts should be corrected.

Oct 30, 2003, 05:35 PM	#14
jamesatzones macrumors regular Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Seattle	This would seem to be a good way to be black listed by Apple... My thought: if you are using a machine that can't run Panther, beige G3 or Wallstreet, (even though they a good machines) it's time to upgrade. Those machines don't even support USB, now an industry standard. You can pick up Blue and Whites for cheap on Ebay. Now, if the OS 9 holdout would just give in we would have a close to perfect Apple world...

Oct 30, 2003, 05:38 PM	#15
the_dalex macrumors member Join Date: Sep 2003	I think it's ridiculous for people to expect that old systems will be able to take 100% advantage of new OS features. I also think Apple handled this badly, and should have just offered refunds to the affected people. This should never have gotten into a courtroom. If OS X ran at 90% capacity, meaning 90% of the features worked as advertised, then I would be happy. Heck, in my opinion, 75% of OS X is much better than 100% of OS 9. I don't know the history, did this guy try to get a software refund from Apple and was denied, then brought up the lawsuit? Or, did he go straight to the lawsuit to try to cash in?

Oct 30, 2003, 05:42 PM	#17
prismfinder macrumors newbie Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Orlando, FL	Cry Babies! I can't believe you people. Complaining that a 4mb, 8mb, or even 16mb video card isn't supported by a fully Open GL composited GUI...what are you thinking? And then having the nerve to tie-up our court systems (for which the public pays) and Apple's Attorney fees (for which all Mac users pay) all so you can have your little $25 gift certificate. PATHETIC! So what if Apple said your rinky-dink 3,4, or 5 year old machine would be supported...is it ever a good idea to install a state-of-the-art OS on a machine that's that old? I don't even try to get use out of sneakers that old and people are bitching about Open GL not working. I'll bet all you bitchers and moaners who actually cash in your gift certificate are the same ones who whine about Apple's prices. Thanks alot...all of us realists really appreciate the price hike on our next machines.

Oct 30, 2003, 05:46 PM	#18
jamesatzones macrumors regular Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Seattle	Try running OS9 on a classic, like an SE or 512k, I think I should file a lawsuit because I have those machines sitting in my closet and I paid good cash for them. The nerve some people have to waste the tax payers money on pointless lawsuits... __________________ "What would you attempt to do if you knew you could not fail?" (author unknown)

Oct 30, 2003, 05:47 PM	#19
Phil Of Mac Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Washington State University	It's amazing how many people who aren't lawyers and who haven't read the case in question feel like they can make better rulings than the judge and/or jury. There's a reason we have courts and lawyers. They're not just a formality.

Oct 30, 2003, 06:07 PM	#21
prismfinder macrumors newbie Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Orlando, FL	Uhh...What? ----------------------------------------------------- It's amazing how many people who aren't lawyers and who haven't read the case in question feel like they can make better rulings than the judge and/or jury. There's a reason we have courts and lawyers. They're not just a formality----------------------------------------- How do you know who is/is not a lawyer and who has/has not "read the case"...it's public domain you know. Besides, more than likely it was a bunch of luddite jurors who run Windows and know nothing about graphic subsystems that found Apple at fault. If the judge had thought Apple had truly screwed over it's customers, he would have mandated more than a $25 gift certificate. The jury system is a joke...they'll offer any jack-off with a bruised knee a settlement. Lawyers and judges may know the law, but they generally don't know technology. Look at the Microsoft rulings that "ordered" them to load millions of classrooms with it's software.

Oct 30, 2003, 06:14 PM	#22
Phil Of Mac Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Washington State University	They must have read the case pretty damn fast If they did read the case, that's fine, I'm not complaining about them. And the jury system is as much of a joke as elections are.

Oct 30, 2003, 06:19 PM	#23
sethypoo macrumors 68000 Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Sacramento, CA, USA	That, and if you have a 6 year old system, isn't it time to upgrade? __________________ Weeeeeee!

Oct 30, 2003, 06:34 PM	#24
Tuttle macrumors member Join Date: Sep 2003	Ok, so these folks have had their public tantrum. Congrats. What a victory.

Oct 30, 2003, 06:56 PM	#25
mrsebastian macrumors 6502a Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: sunny san diego	is it just me or is this whole thing really silly?! i mean i'm all for getting a settlement when you get screwed, but come on. can i get a refund too, for trying to isntall osx on my old mac se? what's really funny is that apple had to pay $350k to the blood-suckin' lawyers. they could have voluntarily put together a refund program that though i don't know the actual number of returns, probably would have cost apple half of that. while they're at it, they could have offered a refund or $100 towards any hardware purchase so people would be more inclined to upgrade. __________________ [ding]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode