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 Settles Class Action Suit Regarding iPhone 4 Antenna
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"4S they give up some of the looking pretty"....er, what looks different on the 4S from the 4. Other than one more black slit on the steel band the phone is exactly the same.
Anyway I just have a very hard time believing engineers told Jobs (and Ive) that the design would lose reception and drop calls and Jobs said 'I don't care this looks prettier so we're going with it'. Somehow the engineers made it work as the 4S has the same design but none of the issues the 4 had.
that black line is the change. Go read on Steve Jobs. He would of been that picky to say no to the extra black line. Jobs was famous for some of his things that was rather nuts in the names of looking better to the eye. Jobs was very OCD about details. It was not the first time Jobs OCD about details over ruled the engineers.
The engineers where more or less told what they had to work with and then told to do try to make it work. Jobs would of not let them do anything to Ive design as it would of effected it. You need to remember Jobs was insanely OCD about the details so yes that little extra black line would of been enough for him to say Hell no.
Yeah, that's not the way it works. First of all, 33% is a pretty common contingency fee agreement if you go and hire your own lawyer. The amount lawyers get in class actions isn't set at 1/3; it's determined by the court based on a lot of factors. But in a consumer case where the award is monetary, the percentage is usually around 20% or so (again, depending).
But more importantly, as noted in the update, is that:
So the 20% (or whatever) number won't be based on the 25 million people who bought an iPhone 4, but only on those who bought an iPhone 4, told Apple that they were having antenna problems, and turned down the free bumper.
I am curious as to what that "small number" might be. I hope they enjoy their bumpers.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
No, this is how it's done:
First, lawyers present "fair estimate" of how many people are potentially affected - this number is based on sales/returns/free bumpers, etc. This number is inflated as much as possible with a help of "experts" who testify for the plaintiff. Then, the total reward is assigned loosely based on this number. Then, court fees assigned and contingency fees are negotiated/approved by the court - somewhere within 10-20% of total reward in class action case. This is the money that law firms get and split between them. And what is left is devided by estimated number of participants/claimants - this is where $15 per customer comes from. The system is designed to push defendant for a settlement because only a fraction of claimants will file for $15 dollars. And a good chunk of money will sit in an escrow until the deadline is reached and will eventually return to defendant (Apple in that case). But law firms are the first ones who get paid.
If you do the math, you'll realize lawyers cut is much more than just several hundred thousand $$ as somebody naively wrote here. It is many millions. This is a polished money making scheme that is built into the final cost of the product (not just Apple) and makes whole parasitic class of people that don't produce any product or service very rich. Their legal expenses are relatively small /paid by the defendant. All the cost of a settlement is eventually paid by the end consumers, us, in one form of another (higher cost of accessories, service, etc). It is a loose/loose situation for consumer, whether someone takes $15 or not - a drop in the bucket. The only winners are trial attorney's mafia and fat legal system that justifies its existence by allowing those games.
One of the ways to stop the hustling is to ban litigation on contingency. But this is easier said than done as most of the US political establishment are lawyers.
alhedges said:
No, this is how it's done:
First, lawyers present "fair estimate" of how many people are potentially affected - this number is based on sales/returns/free bumpers, etc. This number is inflated as much as possible with a help of "experts" who testify for the plaintiff. Then, the total reward is assigned loosely based on this number. Then, court fees assigned and contingency fees are negotiated/approved by the court - somewhere within 10-20% of total reward in class action case. This is the money that law firms get and split between them. And what is left is devided by estimated number of participants/claimants - this is where $15 per customer comes from. The system is designed to push defendant for a settlement because only a fraction of claimants will file for $15 dollars. And a good chunk of money will sit in an escrow until the deadline is reached and will eventually return to defendant (Apple in that case). But law firms are the first ones who get paid.
If you do the math, you'll realize lawyers cut is much more than just several hundred thousand $$ as somebody naively wrote here. It is many millions. This is a polished money making scheme that is built into the final cost of the product (not just Apple) and makes whole parasitic class of people that don't produce any product or service very rich. Their legal expenses are relatively small /paid by the defendant. All the cost of a settlement is eventually paid by the end consumers, us, in one form of another (higher cost of accessories, service, etc). It is a loose/loose situation for consumer, whether someone takes $15 or not - a drop in the bucket. The only winners are trial attorney's mafia and fat legal system that justifies its existence by allowing those games.
One of the ways to stop the hustling is to ban litigation on contingency. But this is easier said than done as most of the US political establishment are lawyers.
That is EXACTLY what happened according to the book. The engineers told Jobs what happens when you touch an antenna. They recommended that--at least--the antenna should be coated or covered with some clear material, but Jony Ive overruled them and Jobs went with Ive.
95% of the decisions Jobs made were brilliant. But 5% were stupid. That's a better ratio that most people could ever hope for, but the antenna falls in the second category.
----------
He was. You don't have to assume. They specifically talked about the iPhone 4 antenna in the book.
----------
Yes, they did. They ignored the advice of the engineering team.
I understand that's what Isaacson claimed in his book. But the iPhone 4S looks exactly like the iPhone 4 except for one extra black slit in the steel frame. I'd love to know what was done with 4S that Steve and Jony refused to do with 4 for aesthetic reasons when 4 and 4S look nearly identical.
Also the news stories about the engineer who supposedly warned of a problem claim that the design team submitted several phone designs before Steve and other executives settled on the design we have now. So I think it's a bit more complicated than Jony Ive wanted the phone to look a certain way, engineering be damed, and Steve sided with him over the advice of engineers. Does Ive really have THAT much power at Apple?
For another problem that doesn't exist? Well, OK, the 4 antenna issue does exist if you test it on your desk after taking it's case off. But it's not a real problem because when you're actually using the phone, it would have it's case on, so it wouldn't happen.
Where is the class action lawsuit against every Samsung phone for being a piece of $417? Or is that just assumed when buying it?
This was an innovative antenna design. There's always risk when you develop new technology. I think it was a lot more complicated than designers trumping engineers. When debuting iPhone 4 Steve specifically pointed out these black lines and their purpose (he called it brilliant engineering). So I have a hard time believing he would have nixed a 4th black line. My guess is that additional slit was the result of redesigning the antenna after more information and knowledge was gained on exactly how it should work. Plus didn't the redesign coincide with adding Verizon and Sprint as carriers? So perhaps it also needed to be redesigned to accommodate the additional carriers?
Ok, this post cracked me up. We get it, you are the most moral person in the world. Probably won't even take packets of katsup from McDonalds for his french fries without asking if it's ok.
In this particular case, the class appears to consist of people who opted out of the bumper program and affirmatively indicated that they had an antenna problem. Which won't be based on sales/returns/etc. (At least that's what I can find out about the case - the settlement website isn't up yet.)
All of this is true.
No. You misread what people wrote. If you look again, people are naively claiming that the lawyers will receive over a HUNDRED MILLION dollars in fees. Not a hundred thousand.
I believe that fees will almost certainly be north of a million (depending on the class). But I think it's ludicrous to believe that they will be over $100 million. That's kind of the point of my post.
Well, of course we don't have to have contingency fees. But the cure would probably be much worse than the problem.
If a company rips off consumers (let's not assume its Apple) to the tune of $30 each, there is no way that an individual consumer can bring a suit. With or without contingency fees. So there are three possible outcomes:
1. The consumers are ripped off and have no realistic recourse against the company.
2. There is significantly enhanced governmental regulation of all businesses, giving something like the FTC the power to order a company to pay all affected consumers $30.
3. We have class actions but attorney's fees are calculated on an hourly basis.
1. is not acceptable.
2. is probably not acceptable to businesses (because of increased costs and regulation) *or* consumers (because of regulatory capture).
3. would work, but it's hard to see that it's an improvement over the existing system (it is allowable under the existing system, too, although it's less common). It's not clear that it's cheaper, and it can lead to a situation where consumer lose more than they would on a contingency basis (particularly where the percentage is set by the court).
WRT contingency fees generally (in non-class actions), we can get rid of them as soon as we have national health care. But not before. Removing contingency fees will remove access to the courts from the poor and lower middle class (basically, anyone who can't pony up $5,000 or so). This may be acceptable to some people in some circumstances - but it is clearly not acceptable to any but the dangerously insane if the result is that people who can't pay $5,000 for a lawyer are also stuck with health care costs (that they also can't pay) caused by, say, a drunk driver.
The US chooses to "regulate" a lot of things by imposing looser regulations but providing an enhanced ability for people to regulate things themselves through the courts.
The EU tends to regulate things through universal health care, significantly enhanced regulation of businesses, and limited access to the courts.
Most "tort reform" advocates want looser regulation of business *and* restricted access to the courts for those without ready cash.
Apparently so. However, the book also brought up the secrecy aspect, which I've always noted as a critical factor in releasing a phone with a defect:
- In-house tests would've been done with a dummy hand.
- Field testers had to use 3GS-look camouflage cases, which prevented most of the problems.
- Even if more than one person noticed a problem, the compartmental secrecy at Apple meant that it was unlikely for them to compare notes and have a eureka moment.
In order:
The Verizon iPhone 4 version added another gap. There's been some handwaving about this being for "CDMA", but that doesn't make sense because antennas only care about frequencies, and Verizon uses the same bands as AT&T.
I believe it was done both to mitigate the problem and to accommodate Verizon's requirement for antenna diversity... that is, dual receiving antennas for better reception.
This was further reinforced with the iPhone 4S, which also added dual transmitting as well. This is clearly shown in the FCC SAR images which I have previously downloaded, labeled and posted:
Ooops. Have to run.
My, my...a super patriot. Love it or leave it.
Gee, and I thought having 18 flags in front of my house made me a real patriot.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel" - Samuel Johnson
Yup, i'm the most moral person in the universe because I'm not taking the $15 for a problem I didn't have...
And you're using the word "moral" as a gesture of sarcasm or insult as if to be looked down upon? Umm....... right......
----------
Just sue Apple again for making their phone out of glass...
I missed the free bumper case because I was out of the country for the period of time that Apple was doing this.
So I'll take that case. It more or less covers the cose of the case that I got for this issue.
So I'll take that case. It more or less covers the cose of the case that I got for this issue.
What a silly class action lawsuit. My iPhone 4 had similar or better reception, and no worse a tendency to drop calls, than any other phone I've ever used - and I don't use a case.
Am I supposed to think I've been suffering a phone with issues?
Well, I guess the lawyers are happy with their latest haul.
Am I supposed to think I've been suffering a phone with issues?
Well, I guess the lawyers are happy with their latest haul.
Remember, Apple wasn't only offering bumpers but full refunds. Since it cannot be stressed enough,
let me repeat that full refunds. What more could you be asking for?
Yes the offer was time limited but it was a fairly reasonable window. After that point,
the issue was so widely reported upon by everybody including apple that it's rather clear that anybody
still buying the phone either wasn't looking for the allegedly ever so vital information or simply
didn't care about it enough to deter them from making their purchase for the originally agreed upon
price. I don't see how anybody could legitimately complain about a lack of disclosure regarding the
issue at this point in time.
Okay, so you bought your phone before the scandal made headlines and you discover you're prone to antennagate dropouts. Accepting the full refund isn't acceptable for some reason, say you've bought a ton of apps and the iphone 3GS just isn't capable of utilizing them to your expectations. You want to show off the aesthetics of the iphone itself because there's some underlying value to that. Okay, fair enough, you're entitled to a fix from apple.
However apple's offerings still may've rectified the situation. Remember, the underlying nature of the problem is that your skin was basically acting as a conductor that bridged the antenna and the case together.If an external conductor doesn't make contact with the antenna, there's no problem, which is why the bumpers work. Even scotch tape seems like it would be a literally transparent solution.
Now I'm pretty sure apple wasn't offering free rolls of tape but I know they were accepting third party cases
because they anticipated not being able to meet the demand with third party cases. Steve said as much
during the announcement.
The remaining question has to be whether this or some other similar product could constitue an acceptable bumper under Apple's bumper program. (They're plastic adhesive strips designed to be placed on the edges of your phone to fix the problem.)
If under these circumstances (and only these circumstances) they didn't, you may take the money guilt free. Otherwise it just seems disingenuous claim serving as a pretense for free money.
let me repeat that full refunds. What more could you be asking for?
Yes the offer was time limited but it was a fairly reasonable window. After that point,
the issue was so widely reported upon by everybody including apple that it's rather clear that anybody
still buying the phone either wasn't looking for the allegedly ever so vital information or simply
didn't care about it enough to deter them from making their purchase for the originally agreed upon
price. I don't see how anybody could legitimately complain about a lack of disclosure regarding the
issue at this point in time.
gco212 said:
Okay, so you bought your phone before the scandal made headlines and you discover you're prone to antennagate dropouts. Accepting the full refund isn't acceptable for some reason, say you've bought a ton of apps and the iphone 3GS just isn't capable of utilizing them to your expectations. You want to show off the aesthetics of the iphone itself because there's some underlying value to that. Okay, fair enough, you're entitled to a fix from apple.
However apple's offerings still may've rectified the situation. Remember, the underlying nature of the problem is that your skin was basically acting as a conductor that bridged the antenna and the case together.If an external conductor doesn't make contact with the antenna, there's no problem, which is why the bumpers work. Even scotch tape seems like it would be a literally transparent solution.
Now I'm pretty sure apple wasn't offering free rolls of tape but I know they were accepting third party cases
because they anticipated not being able to meet the demand with third party cases. Steve said as much
during the announcement.
The remaining question has to be whether this or some other similar product could constitue an acceptable bumper under Apple's bumper program. (They're plastic adhesive strips designed to be placed on the edges of your phone to fix the problem.)
If under these circumstances (and only these circumstances) they didn't, you may take the money guilt free. Otherwise it just seems disingenuous claim serving as a pretense for free money.
Last edited:
They specifically put dual antennas in the 4S just to address this problem.
According to Isaacson's interviews with Jobs, yes. Jobs confirmed that Ive did have that kind of power.