Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, in contrast to what many fanboys say, updating the OS isn't really "optional" in practice, but this doesn't change the fact that the lawsuit is bulls... . You may not have the option to downgrade, but you have the option to stop using an iOS based phone and buy an Android or WP based one just like I did.

Apple really should allow their users to downgrade their OS. This would solve so many problems like this. This becomes even more of an issue when you update and then start having problems. You don't have the option to downgrade and wait until a fixed version comes up.
 
Last edited:
Well, in contrast to what many fanboys say, updating the OS isn't really "optional" in practice, but this doesn't change the fact that the lawsuit is bulls... . You may not have the option to downgrade, but you have the option to stop using an iOS based phone and buy an Android or WP based one just like I did.

Apple really should allow their users to downgrade their OS. This would solve so many problems like this. This becomes even more of an issue when you update and then start having problems. You don't have the option to downgrade and wait until a fixed version comes up.
Should Apple get to decide when to mess up and degrade what you bought pushing you to make the choice of upgrading or moving on to another platform? Why should Apple get to do that? If you were buying now with all of this out there that's one thing, but if you already bought it why does Apple get to screw up and have a security hole in what you use and then not fix it but only offer you to use something else where the issue doesn't exist? There's a difference between the two.
 
Given the amount of trouble iOS 7 has given my girlfriend, I feel like the class action is justified. Quite frankly, I feel like her iPhone would have been more stable had it been running Windows ME.

:confused: probably a bunch of snap chat viruses screwing up her phone.
 
Should Apple get to decide when to mess up and degrade what you bought pushing you to make the choice of upgrading or moving on to another platform? Why should Apple get to do that? If you were buying now with all of this out there that's one thing, but if you already bought it why does Apple get to screw up and have a security hole in what you use and then not fix it but only offer you to use something else where the issue doesn't exist? There's a difference between the two.

I don't know maybe because it's their product and they're entitled to do whatever they want with it?

I agree that there's a difference between the two cases you mentioned for a user but unfortunately from a legal standpoint there isn't.

That's a problem with most software, not only with iOS, except that with all other software, you have the option to downgrade.
 
I don't know maybe because it's their product and they're entitled to do whatever they want with it?

I agree that there's a difference between the two cases you mentioned for a user but unfortunately from a legal standpoint there isn't.
When we purchase a device we are under the control of the company that we get it from because it's not like we paid money for that device and it's ours? How do people just accept that and don't even think there's anything wrong with that? So if Apple simply shut off everyone's device tomorrow that would be all good with everyone because that's within their legal right somehow? When you purchase a car next time the manufacturer can just come over and repaint it and change a bunch of stuff whenever they feel like it? Why is it acceptable with something like a mobile phone but not many other things in life?

----------

I don't know maybe because it's their product and they're entitled to do whatever they want with it?

I agree that there's a difference between the two cases you mentioned for a user but unfortunately from a legal standpoint there isn't.

That's a problem with most software, not only with iOS, except that with all other software, you have the option to downgrade.
And there lies one big difference, which, can make quite a difference from a legal standpoint. No one here can say that it is or isn't from a legal standpoint, that's kind of a big point as well.
 
Should Apple get to decide when to mess up and degrade what you bought pushing you to make the choice of upgrading or moving on to another platform? Why should Apple get to do that? If you were buying now with all of this out there that's one thing, but if you already bought it why does Apple get to screw up and have a security hole in what you use and then not fix it but only offer you to use something else where the issue doesn't exist? There's a difference between the two.

Should a user be responsible for any damages incurred because they refused to upgrade their iOS software and were a victim to a security flaw in the version of iOS that their device shipped with?

Only in the iOS world do users bitch and moan about a software update. Meanwhile, in Android world users are crying for updates.
 
Should a user be responsible for any damages incurred because they refused to upgrade their iOS software and were a victim to a security flaw in the version of iOS that their device shipped with?

Only in the iOS world do users bitch and moan about a software update. Meanwhile, in Android world users are crying for updates.
Android vs. iOS has little to do with any of this.

As far as users being responsible for something like that, that's an interesting question, and I would say can fall into a gray area (ethically/legally) given all the circumstances surrounding the flaw, how it was introduced, how long it has been around, and/or how it was addressed, as far as how that fix would be delivered to the user.
 
Android vs. iOS has little to do with any of this.

As far as users being responsible for something like that, that's an interesting question, and I would say can fall into a gray area (ethically/legally) given all the circumstances surrounding the flaw, how it was introduced, how long it has been around, and/or how it was addressed, as far as how that fix would be delivered to the user.

How is it grey area?

Let's say a Car manufacturer issues a factory recall on floor mats in a car you own because it has been found to cause the accelerator pedal to stick and make pose a danger for consumers.

If a new designed floor mat that addresses this issue is offered for free by the manufacturer and you refuse to change the mats because you don't like how it looks or the color is the car manufacturer responsible if you drive into a wall?
 
How is it grey area?

Let's say a Car manufacturer issues a factory recall on floor mats in a car you own because it has been found to cause the accelerator pedal to stick and make pose a danger for consumers.

If a new designed floor mat that addresses this issue is offered for free by the manufacturer and you refuse to change the mats because you don't like how it looks or the color is the car manufacturer responsible if you drive into a wall?

That's a straw man argument. When a car company re-issues eg a floor mat, they don't change the color from blues and grays to whites and pastels. Likewise, the new floor mats work properly, something that Apple cannot claim for iOS 7.

But if a car company did issue a recall on floor mats, you would have to upgrade them. And if the new floor mats had a different problem, then the car company would be responsible for the new problem, just as Apple should be responsible for the "new" problems with iOS 7.
 
While true, there is still a forced download of iOS 7 lacking the ability to delete it.



The McDonalds case was far from 'stupid'

Image

Yeah. That coffee isn't too hot.
I agree about the McDonalds case, and from what I read it's how McDonald's handled too is how they got in trouble. The coffee was basically thrown at the customer.

Now I thought I read there was a way to delete the download?

Also, can Android phones downgrade the OS once you upgrade it?
 
How is it grey area?

Let's say a Car manufacturer issues a factory recall on floor mats in a car you own because it has been found to cause the accelerator pedal to stick and make pose a danger for consumers.

If a new designed floor mat that addresses this issue is offered for free by the manufacturer and you refuse to change the mats because you don't like how it looks or the color is the car manufacturer responsible if you drive into a wall?
Probably because to fix their own defect with the floor mat instead of just exchanging it they will also change the seats in the car, put in a different radio, change the shifter and the steering wheel, and some other completely unrelated and unnecessary things. Your car still works fine and does what it should be doing, but at the very least completely differnent on the inside from what you actually bought and wanted.

See how many such car owners or even oversight agencies will see that as anything close to being an appropriate/valid recall action. And there's at the very least a potential gray area.
 
Last edited:
Probably because to fix their own defect with the floor mat instead of just exchanging it they will also change the seats in the car, put in a different radio, change the shifter and the steering wheel, and some other completely unrelated and unnecessary things. Your car still works fine and does what it should be doing, but at the very least completely differnent on the inside from what you actually bought and wanted.

See how many such car owners or even oversight agencies will see that as anything close to being an appropriate/valid recall action. And there's at the very least a potential gray area.

Regardless of how it looks iOS still maintains its familiar core functionality so your analogy isn't quite fair.
 
Regardless of how it looks iOS still maintains its familiar core functionality so your analogy isn't quite fair.
Regardless of how the car interior looks it still maintains its familiar core functionality (just different seats, radio, steering wheel, etc. but still work and function the same essentially). So the analogy (which you brought up, just in incomplete form) is quite fair indeed.
 
Regardless of how the car interior looks it still maintains its familiar core functionality (just different seats, radio, steering wheel, etc. but still work and function the same essentially). So the analogy (which you brought up, just in incomplete form) is quite fair indeed.

You're not going to let this go are you?

- Apple decides which devices get updated to iOS 7
- the user ACCEPTS this decision by agreeing to the EULA.
- End of Story

You can come back with "just because its in the EULA doesn't mean it's right" argument all you want. Let this petty class action lawsuit run its course and die along with this thread.
 
What kind of bs is this? It's never going to happen and even if (we) won 5 million dollars the 25 cents I get won't be anything but 1/4th an app. You can only buy 100% of apps so...
 
You're not going to let this go are you?

- Apple decides which devices get updated to iOS 7
- the user ACCEPTS this decision by agreeing to the EULA.
- End of Story

You can come back with "just because its in the EULA doesn't mean it's right" argument all you want. Let this petty class action lawsuit run its course and die along with this thread.
Well, as always, that's the part it circles back and comes down to, letting it go through the system and work itself out.

----------

What kind of bs is this? It's never going to happen and even if (we) won 5 million dollars the 25 cents I get won't be anything but 1/4th an app. You can only buy 100% of apps so...
Perhaps the hope is that it doesn't necessarily result in some sort of money being split up (or at least only in that), but in some change in how Apple does things when it comes to certain situations and/or what their user agreement can or can't really (legally/ethically) say with respect to some things.
 
Well, as always, that's the part it circles back and comes down to, letting it go through the system and work itself out.

----------

Perhaps the hope is that it doesn't necessarily result in some sort of money being split up (or at least only in that), but in some change in how Apple does things when it comes to certain situations and/or what their user agreement can or can't really (legally/ethically) say with respect to some things.

Or it will result in Apple even have more control and users less control. Apple sells software bound to hardware, and it's probably within their legal rights to not fix/support older versions, which is what a lawsuit will ultimately show.

I for one would opt-out of such a lawsuit, in the hopes it would be a class of 10 ultimately.
 
You're not going to let this go are you?

- Apple decides which devices get updated to iOS 7
- the user ACCEPTS this decision by agreeing to the EULA.
- End of Story

You can come back with "just because its in the EULA doesn't mean it's right" argument all you want. Let this petty class action lawsuit run its course and die along with this thread.

Just because users accept EULA does not mean users cannot sue. EULA can always be overturned in the court . Even constitution law can be modified, EULA can be changed or void entirely if plaintiff gets resasonable argument.
 
While true, there is still a forced download of iOS 7 lacking the ability to delete it.



The McDonalds case was far from 'stupid'

Image

Yeah. That coffee isn't too hot.

In other news, ovens get hot and ice is cold!

The jury decided that the warnings on the cup saying that the contents are hot were not big enough, but what about the fact that she would have felt the heat through the cup prior to removing the lid?

Restaurants sell flaming food/drinks, or hot drinks. They should not be held responsible for any injury caused by customer negligence.

I wouldn't even dream of suing for spilling a hot drink on myself, I have self respect. :eek:

It's unfortunate what happened to the poor old woman, but hot coffee is, well, hot! She should have been more careful.
 
I am not fancying the class lawsuit but I really dislike how Apple force user to upgrade to new iOS during restoring process. I would prefer to stay on the same version or be able to downgrade, but no, you have to do it to the latest version or suck it up. There is no such thing as choice when it comes to upgrading. Upgrade (during restoring process) should always be "optional" and should be allowed to restore to current version or older version per user decision.
 
I am not fancying the class lawsuit but I really dislike how Apple force user to upgrade to new iOS during restoring process. I would prefer to stay on the same version or be able to downgrade, but no, you have to do it to the latest version or suck it up. There is no such thing as choice when it comes to upgrading. Upgrade (during restoring process) should always be "optional" and should be allowed to restore to current version or older version per user decision.

I understand what you are saying, but if a suit goes through, it will be up to the courts to decide. The courts may actually side in Apples' favor and could mean even more control over the software/hardware.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.