Literally, he is suing them over this? Is this a joke? Its like suing macrumors because no one responded to my thread or something similar lol.
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.
Apple Being Sued Over Phone-Switching iMessage Issue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And, yes, name calling, the calling card of not having an argument that can actually be backed up.
How about brining this lawsuit to force the hand of Apple to finally start paying attention to this longstanding issue and fix it, or at least to generate enough attention about it that would in turn get Apple to do it one way or anther? Clearly no other reason than some sort of money can exist for something like this...at least for those who just want to ignore all the other reasons, despite them being posted all over this thread.
Rather than writing your own words, care to actually copy and paste parts of the actual EULA since you're trying to say that Apple's EULA are completely useless and have zero power in a court of law. There is no reason to have a software license agreement if it has zero power in a court of law. Since you made that blanket statement you need to show where it says that the EULA has no power in a court of law. I mean, those were your words (in a slight paraphrase), not mine. I'm just asking you to show me where it says that. If you can show that then awesome, but you haven't.
Seems like you are misinterpreting what was actually said, it's not that they don't have power it's that their power can be overriden by other laws and the legal system in general.
Exactly. There are obviously valid parts in an EULA as well, such as the ones regarding usage (one user license), copying etc.
Basically, the EULA can only give the user rights that match or exceed what is granted by applicable legislation. And since most EULAs do not grant any additional rights, the EULA is basically rubbish when it comes to consumers; everything is already in the legislation.
The reason for EULAs, I suspect, is business users. Business to business transactions are not bound by consumer rights legislation.
No, what I am asking overall is for you to show me proof that the EULA has been completely dismissed as the norm in the past and the courts have been in favor of the consumer regardless of the situation. Because that's exactly what you're suggesting. I'm only posting your own words.
Because based on your own opinion (because that's what it is until proven otherwise) when consumers buy software there should be no reason for us as a consumers to have to agree to a software license if it's completely null and void even if we misuse the software.
People keep saying that the lawsuit is stupid/frivolous/waste and this may be true but this has been an issue since 2011 and they have done nothing about it in the last 3 years. I think the main purpose of the lawsuit is to finally get their attention and force them to fix their damn problem. Im affected buy it and have tried everything I have read on the internet to resolve it but its hit and miss. This IS Apples issue, not Androids or Windows phones, so they need to get of their entitled butt and fix it.
So you're saying that if someone with an iPhone sends you a "SMS" message that you can't receive that on your new Android device? I don't think so. This only affects people trying to send an iMessage.
Trying to instruct all my family & friends that that they need to change settings on their iPhone and delete our existing text conversation shouldn't have to be done to begin with. I have made the changes with my parents iPhone's and we thought all was well but then tried sending a text with an image (yes mms was turned on), it didn't come through. So there is STILL issues. It's Apples servers not releasing our phone numbers plain and simple. Just because people are happy with Apple and they don't have any issues doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist... it's existed since 2011.
Go find an online copy of your consumer rights legislation. It will say there something along the lines that these rights are not waiveable and any contract that tries to assert such a claim is deemed invalid on those points.
EDIT: EULAs have been overthrown in court on several occasions:
http://www.destructoid.com/eu-court-rejects-eulas-says-digital-games-can-be-resold-230641.phtml
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/10/how_zappos_user.htm
This is not to say that EULAs in general are unenforceable. Just the parts that try to limit your rights as a consumer.
If you look at the list of cases where the EULA has been deemed enforceable, you can clearly see that they are for the most part B2B-cases: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-user_license_agreement
Exactly. Which I why I said that to all intents and purposes they are rubbish.
Oh, and there is no such thing as "misusing" software. It's yours, you (as a consumer, not necessarily as a business) can do whatever the heck you want with it, as long as you are not breaking any laws.
Regardless of what Apple has you agreeing to in the EULA of OS X, you are free to install it on whatever hardware you want to, from a Mac computer to the toaster in your kitchen. You may not, however install it on more devices than what the license allows you to do, but since OS X is now a free download, well, you can just download a copy for each of your toasters.
Why do they have EULAs then? Beats me. I'm guessing for the following reasons:
- To have a default to fall back on in case there is no applicable legislation.
- To grant you rights beyond what is dictated by law.
- For business users. Pretty much any contract (including an EULA) between two business entities is valid. This is how Apple was able to shut down Pear PC and similar shops that were selling Hackintoshes.
EDIT2: Also, the EULA should grant protection for the company in those cases that are not covered by law. If something isn't stated clearly in the EULA, a malicious customer could potentially try to argue that the vendor had promised the software to do X, Y and Z and now it doesn't. Having a blanket statement saying that the vendor makes no promise of any functionalities or usability of the software will protect against such hassle.
It will not, however, allow the vendor to ship an empty CD and take cover behind said clause.
----------
MMS is a whole other bag of hurt, so that is necessarily not related to this issue.
Last edited:
No, it is not the issue of TRYING to send an iMessage. I've had this problem. It's the SMS sending and us on the Android side not being able to receive it, simply because of the iMessage issue.
Well it can't be affecting too many people because a friend of mine just dumped his iPhone for an Android. We've been iMessaging for years. I didn't even know he switched to Android until I tried to send him an iMessage from my Mac. It immediately showed that he was no longer an iPhone user. I picked up my iPhone and texted him and he got the message immediately without issue.
So, I'm not saying it's not happening, I'm just saying it's not happening to everyone obviously.
The issue is that iPhones won't send an SMS because they "think" that that number can receive iMessages, even though it can't. So it constantly retries the iMessage and won't send an SMS, thus the message never gets delivered and there is nothing that the recipient or the send really can do about it.
Right, and the issue is that Apple can't offer a solution to those who it does happen to. And there doesn't appear to be any repeatable way to make sure it doesn't happen. Sometimes even if you turn off iMessage before you get rid of the phone it still doesn't work.
Yes, that exactly what we are trying to say. If a person is trying to send us a message, it will not send it using SMS, instead it will send it as an iMessage even though we don't have an iphone and the message is lost forever. Basically Apples iMessages hi-jacks your ability to ever receive SMS messages, even though you no longer have an iPhone and do not/cannot use iMessages anymore.
I am surprised how many times this is said (4-5 replies per person saying what you are saying) and the same sh**t keeps getting posted. Either "you can't use iMessaging"–which is the problem, we don't want to and when we stop, it keeps using it, or "it's not Apple's fault"–which it is; because you lose a feature on ALL your phones across the board just because at one point in your life you made the mistake of owning an iPhone and using iMessages.
So yes, a lawsuit is definitely worth it. I'm surprised this is the first one. Hopefully it turns into class-action. It's NOT about the money, it's about losing one the primary features of a non-apple phone just because you had an iPhone in the past.
Last edited:
Respectfully I will quote your reply as rubbish as well, because you have no idea what u r talking about, you are definitely entitled to your opinion tho. And the coming verdict will prove you wrong. I come from a family of judges and lawyers, I did my DD, you know. Good luck to you
I rest my case.And it's Apple determining whether or not an iMessage is sent.
----------
Nice attempt at a joke. Any even half decent lawyer or judge knows that even laws can be overturned, let alone something much less official as a company's EULA.Respectfully I will quote your reply as rubbish as well, because you have no idea what u r talking about, you are definitely entitled to your opinion tho. And the coming verdict will prove you wrong. I come from a family of judges and lawyers, I did my DD, you know. Good luck to you
----------
Everyone and too many people are different things. Even if only 25% of people switch from iPhone to a other platform and let's say 50% of those have this issue, given the number of people using iPhones, taking those percentages from it can still easily be in the millions. I guess that doesn't sound like a lot, does it?
Respectfully I will quote your reply as rubbish as well, because you have no idea what u r talking about, you are definitely entitled to your opinion tho. And the coming verdict will prove you wrong. I come from a family of judges and lawyers, I did my DD, you know. Good luck to you
Cool. There is still nothing uncertain about the fact that a business entity can't enforce anything in an EULA that tries to limit the legal rights of the consumer. Funny that no one in your family told you that.
EDIT: If anything, the EULA could be used against Apple:
APPLE INC. iOS SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT said:
Clearly Apple is in violation of this part since it actually does not turn the service off for some people...
----------
From the iOS EULA:
Last edited:
Listen, I understand what you are saying and we did talk about EULA but it becomes irrelevant once you consider that iMessages is an "additional service" that does NOT promise to deliver your message, on time, or AT ALL. Even once you turn the service off (or use a different phone), Apple is not the blocking entity between your new phone and your provider. Your phone number is embedded in your SIM or in your CDMA chip, once you change phone, the number changes to your new SIM/CDMA-chip as well which therefor cuts any connection to Apple. Apple has no connection to your provider or to your number. Nonetheless, even tho the problem remains, you can't blame Apple directly for it. You will see that when the verdict comes, it will state that the problem (from the additional service) cannot be held accountable to the fact that something is blocking your SMS from reaching the target. If you have experience in programming, phones must have a working receiving-function for SMS, with priority compared to DATA information. I simply can't see anyone being able to prove that Apple is the blocking entity after you switch phone. And if they can, I will gladly return here to admit being wrong
Obviously there's a huge amount of detail to be put into the above, but im really not trying to convince you, i totally get what ur saying, but it will be impossible to prove Apple was behind all that - and thats my point.
Regardless if they win or lose this case, for the sake of all those affected by this, i hope that this suit will be at least a wake up call for everyone involved, to solve this problem.
Apple are the ones that mistakenly send other people's message via iMessage when the recipient doesn't have that service (in many cases when the recipient explicitly turned it off and followed other instructions from apple). So good luck saying that Apple isn't responsible for mishandling communication when they take it to their own servers and not do anything with it vs. letting it go through as an SMS as its supposed to. It's rather straightforward and far from impossible to prove.Listen, I understand what you are saying and we did talk about EULA but it becomes irrelevant once you consider that iMessages is an "additional service" that does NOT promise to deliver your message, on time, or AT ALL. Even once you turn the service off (or use a different phone), Apple is not the blocking entity between your new phone and your provider. Your phone number is embedded in your SIM or in your CDMA chip, once you change phone, the number changes to your new SIM/CDMA-chip as well which therefor cuts any connection to Apple. Apple has no connection to your provider or to your number. Nonetheless, even tho the problem remains, you can't blame Apple directly for it. You will see that when the verdict comes, it will state that the problem (from the additional service) cannot be held accountable to the fact that something is blocking your SMS from reaching the target. If you have experience in programming, phones must have a working receiving-function for SMS, with priority compared to DATA information. I simply can't see anyone being able to prove that Apple is the blocking entity after you switch phone. And if they can, I will gladly return here to admit being wrong
Obviously there's a huge amount of detail to be put into the above, but im really not trying to convince you, i totally get what ur saying, but it will be impossible to prove Apple was behind all that - and thats my point.
Regardless if they win or lose this case, for the sake of all those affected by this, i hope that this suit will be at least a wake up call for everyone involved, to solve this problem.
No one is claiming that. Apple is, however, the blocking entity between the sender and receiver. It is due to a bug in Apples systems that causes the message not to be sent and it is a bug in Apples system that tells the sender that her message has been delivered, when it in fact is not.
There is nothing unclear about this. Even Apple themselves admit it, not that they really need to. The way I see this getting played out is that Apple is told to either fix the issue or shut down the entire service, with a hefty fine attached for non-compliance.
Respectfully I will quote your reply as rubbish as well, because you have no idea what u r talking about, you are definitely entitled to your opinion tho. And the coming verdict will prove you wrong. I come from a family of judges and lawyers, I did my DD, you know. Good luck to you
Good luck to you and you rest your case? Sounds like your family of judges came from TV shows. Chances are this lawsuit will go class-action very soon.
Just a reminder to those of you who are trying to defend Apple about this case.. We are all, as Apple customers, affected by this bug! Whether we eventually switch over to another phone OS or have a friend who just wants another phone besides iPhone. We are all affected and this is something which Apple definitely needs to fix. We want Apple to offer a seamless experience whether it's using Apple products or moving on from them. I'm just so confused on why some of you guys are just fighting to defend Apple about this issue (without stopping to realize what the real issue is), when I believe you're a customer yourself, unless you have some type of motivation to try to keep people on iOS.. I just don't know..
Who is trying to defend Apple? The issue needs to be fixed. The argument is whether or not this is worth a lawsuit.