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.
Teenager Targeted by Apple in White iPhone 4 Lawsuit Interviewed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think what he did was a great business idea, filled a gap in the market. Living the American dream. Maybe he should apply for The Apprentice next year, I'm sure Lord Sugar would appreciate his business acumen.
Did you really think that what you were doing was not going to get you in trouble?
Age of this teen? Child or adult?
If this were a crime against person instead of an intellectual property crime, the report would emphasize his age and status as either minor or legal adult. How old is this "kid"? Can a "teenager" be 19 years old? Would a 19 year old armed robber get a verbal warning?
If this were a crime against person instead of an intellectual property crime, the report would emphasize his age and status as either minor or legal adult. How old is this "kid"? Can a "teenager" be 19 years old? Would a 19 year old armed robber get a verbal warning?
Other big questions:
Did the kid have a business license?
Did he pay the import duties on the parts?
Did he report any income/loss to the IRS?
Did the kid have a business license?
Did he pay the import duties on the parts?
Did he report any income/loss to the IRS?
Umm yes they can be filed with out your knowledge. Chances are the notification could of been in the mail so to speak so it was filed (and public record) before the official notification got to them.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
It'll have zero effect on Apppe's image because consumers weren't affected and no puppies were killed. Apple's image is about their products, the Cool factor, and the iLifestyle. The average consumer isn't going to give a damn about some lawsuit about a dumb kid when they're waiting for their iPad.
Things like this have never affected Apple's image. I remember Apple taking a dump all over a little girl who offered an unsolicited product idea back in 2006. No one really cared. People continued to line up for Apple gear.
It's not bad nor good, it's just reality.
You know what affects image in tech? Selling boring, lousy products. And historic antitrust cases that make the headlines and show how a company lied and cheated their way to market share. You know who to ask about that.
mack pro said:
It'll have zero effect on Apppe's image because consumers weren't affected and no puppies were killed. Apple's image is about their products, the Cool factor, and the iLifestyle. The average consumer isn't going to give a damn about some lawsuit about a dumb kid when they're waiting for their iPad.
Things like this have never affected Apple's image. I remember Apple taking a dump all over a little girl who offered an unsolicited product idea back in 2006. No one really cared. People continued to line up for Apple gear.
It's not bad nor good, it's just reality.
You know what affects image in tech? Selling boring, lousy products. And historic antitrust cases that make the headlines and show how a company lied and cheated their way to market share. You know who to ask about that.
Only to people like you.
To the rest of the world Apple image is going down quickly. They already are starting to be viewed as worse than MS ever was.
As for the case I willing to bet who Apple is really after is the kids supplier and they more than likely will let him keep most if not all his profits as the supplier is the real threat and who more than likely made the real killing on this. Getting a distributed is minor you have to kill the supply line if you want to stop it from happening.
The kid's not being sued. The lawsuit was withdrawn before he even found out about it. How could you possibly have missed that?
And how's the kid gone from $130,000 to $0 in such a hurry? Rumours of his business acumen seem to be greatly exaggerated.
This is truly unfortunate. They are basically saying that nobody can sell parts for me to modify my phone. They have essentially patented the color white on an iPhone. That's stupid. This would be like Ford suing paints shops for painting cars the same color it came from the factory. Why can't I buy parts for MY PHONE in white and install them? Its MY PHONE.
That would of been a good idea before starting, maybe. You definitely want to have all your ducks in a row before you venture into business with the big boys. Kid or not, seems like epic fail to me on the kids part and his parents. Obviously his parents are not paying attention to his activities either.
Consumers need to stop opening their wallets to Apple and get over their Apple-obsession before anyone believes that.
Won't happen anytime soon. It's all about Apple. And more Apple.
http://macdailynews.com/2011/05/09/apple-leaps-past-google-to-become-worlds-most-valuable-brand/
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html
http://www.appleinsider.com/article...terprise_as_corporate_mac_sales_surge_66.html
Apple can barely keep up with iPad demand, for example. iPhone sales estimates for 2012 are, well, stratospheric to say the least. And probably right, too. Mac sales are at an all-time high.
http://www.9to5mac.com/69609/ipad-2s-go-on-sale-in-russia-to-long-lines-and-high-prices/
Damn. Who *isn't* buying??
For consumers it's all about the goods, not moral dilemmas.
But hey, we'll take your word for it. Who am I to negate your delusions?
Last edited:
That's the thing, you can't prove that Apple lost sales due to the kid. The product was sold prior to the white iPhone being sold. It still required people with an iPhone to buy.
As I recall, these parts were declared defective to begin with. Chances are they were destined for the trash.
Did the kid break the law? Yes. But the loss to Apple was marginal at best.
To those saying he's unwise to take a lawyer to the meeting... he doesn't have the money for a lawyer.
Have you read more than 5 words of any article on this topic? Perhaps you only understand the language of stupid analogies. Here's one that will help you understand. This scenario is like Ford suing body shops for selling to customers Ford branded chassis panels that were either stolen, defective or counterfeit. What Apple have 'essentially patented' is their name, logo, brand etc. This is quite normal.
someone does not understand what a PR image is and then sales. Not exactly the same thing.
Apple public image has been dropping like a rock for a while. But like I said before you could never understand that and just link to fanboy sites singing how great it is.
Those were initial reports by the press before the kid was even interviewed. What he really made we don't know. But considering how he said he didn't have much money... he still had to pay for the parts.
Unless it translates into dollars, it's meaningless.
Apple's public image rests on the strength of their products. It's inseparable from what the brand represents.
Everything else - unless extreme - is ephemeral. I doubt most consumers even know or care about this lawsuit. Which, by the way, has been dropped. In a couple of days it'll be forgotten.
Get real.
but it does translate into dollars. A lot of people are refusing to buy Apple products due to it. That is a lot of loss potentional sales. Not that I would expect you to understand that.
I also see that you clearly do not care what a company does. I guess Apple could beat people to death rob them blind and as long as they are making great sale numbers you could care less.
I see that you already sold your soul to Apple which sold it to the devil for more profit.
Oh yeah. we can really tell.
That's right. I *don't* understand your entire imaginary, illusory argument.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/20results.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/29/apple_profits_top_microsoft/
Of course I care what a company does. Most people do. In this instance the company in question has protected their brand and gone after thieves. This is normal.
They haven't killed anyone. They haven't beaten anyone to death. They're trying to make the best of difficult conditions in China that affect nearly all tech companies that use foreign labour. They go after thieves. They protect their intellectual property and brand integrity. They try to make a profit by selling desirable products.
In other words, nothing to see here. Except record sales. I'm not sure what YOU are seeing, though. You think maybe it's time to sit down and figure out what's real and what's fiction in your world, while you're going on about souls and devils? It probably is.
I messed up and wrote can when I meant can't, so I ruined my own attempt at humor. I went back and edited the post, but the punch line has lost its effect.