Apple Sued Over Meltdown and Spectre in U.S. as iPhone Slowdown Lawsuits Now Total 45

[deanthedev]

Hmmmm. Apple does not 'select' those. Apple designs and manufactures those processors. Why would they not be responsible for issues? Who else should be sued in this case? Intel is already sued for Intel processors. Now Apple is sued for their own Apple processors. Seems in line with expectations.

So why haven't we seen countless lawsuits in the past for the security exploits found in Windows (for example)? How many people over the years have had their computers hijacked by a virus or malware? Why aren't they filing to hold Microsoft responsible?

The answer is simple. Because they don't have a case. It's literally impossible to produce software that's 100% bug free. There will always be exploits discovered (esp in something as complex as an OS). All someone like Microsoft can do is take the necessary steps to make their software as secure as possible when the design it, and when exploits arrive to patch them as soon as possible.

The same thing applies to this processor bug. Apple, Intel and others didn't intentionally design the flaw. They were looking at making the fastest processors possible, and someone found an exploit with their method. Now that exploit is being patched. This is all that can reasonably be expected of them to do. You can't protect against every possible vulnerability in hardware/software. To imply that Apple or Intel should be held to such a ridiculous standard is beyond asinine.

 

[deferredAnon]

it seems that there is a new way to get money, do not play lottery, do not go to the unemployment office, do not apply for food stamps, simply try to find a way to sue apple, that where the money is.

anybody that has or use a device knows that there is always a possibility or a risk of the device being compromise or hack, there always been exploits in software and hardware, do I get to sue Microsoft for any update they release when they try to patch their windows OS, well do I get to sue virus , worms, trojan, creators. this people are just looking for a payday, trust me is not going to happen the most they gan get if they get anything is like 50 dollars each. if you know that there is a big risk security problem running the internet that hasn't been patch , well why you keep going on line and keep exposing yourself, only a desperate lawyer that is looking for money or a rookie lawyer that doesn't know nothing about laws will accept this kind of case, one thing is for sure even a rookie lawyer can win this case for apple, those looking for money not even Matlock can win this one for you

You can sue anyone you want. And lots of armchair lawyers already working for free for Apple.

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

So why haven't we seen countless lawsuits in the past for the security exploits found in Windows (for example)? How many people over the years have had their computers hijacked by a virus or malware? Why aren't they filing to hold Microsoft responsible?

The answer is simple. Because they don't have a case. It's literally impossible to produce software that's 100% bug free. There will always be exploits discovered (esp in something as complex as an OS). All someone like Microsoft can do is take the necessary steps to make their software as secure as possible when the design it, and when exploits arrive to patch them as soon as possible.

The same thing applies to this processor bug. Apple, Intel and others didn't intentionally design the flaw. They were looking at making the fastest processors possible, and someone found an exploit with their method. Now that exploit is being patched. This is all that can reasonably be expected of them to do. You can't protect against every possible vulnerability in hardware/software. To imply that Apple or Intel should be held to such a ridiculous standard is beyond asinine.

I didn't say they have a case. The question I reacted to assumed that Apple was not designing their own processors. I pointed out the mistake and I simply explained what is happening at the moment. Subtle difference.
Stick to the subject. I can easily point to a thousand other things to sue as well, but that does not change what is happening here at the moment. How it plays out is anybody's guess. You are reading to much in my answer.

 

[AFEPPL]

Interesting concept - sue a vendor for malicious code wrote by a 3rd party been able to be executed against its platform..
Apple would be out of business with iOS in less than a year...

Or maybe some could use some quasi/fuzzy logic and sue the open source BSD project...?

 

[EdT]

So Apple wasn't supposed to use processors?

As for the battery and slowing down of older phones I see this as a non issue. From what I've read and understand about this it was only done for those phones which had batteries which were having issues to help extend the life of the battery. I don't see how this is a bad thing?

I mean, either slow down the processing which drains the battery more slowly and wears the already degraded battery down less. OR The user has a phone which the battery is dying much more quickly because of the battery and it degrades much more quickly. The second the user would be looking at getting the battery replaced sooner or replacing the phone anyway because they'll be like "I have no battery life anymore I need a new phone!" The former, the user can go longer without replacing the battery, yes things are going slower but you can go longer on that phone call than you did before, text more, etc.

I think the problem with their battery fix is they didn’t tell people what they were doing and why, with a possible side issue of were their batteries failing more quickly than is normal. All you heard was a fix was included in version 10 IOS that fixed a problem that some older phones had. Neither what the problem was nor what the solution implemented by Apple was explained.

Batteries wear out, that’s a fact of smartphone life. And even if Apple had explained what they did and why you still would have heard complaints. But by not telling people WHAT they were doing, and why, Apple fed right into the belief that they were throttling performance to sell new phones, a rumor that has existed long before the current marketing disaster popped up.

If Apple was trying to intentionally drive people to new phones by implementing this software fix then they were incredibly stupid. With all of the testing being done by 3rd parties reducing the CPU clock speed was bound to be discovered, and it was. The stated reason, to prevent older phones from just locking up, is true, and had Apple stated this is what they did and why, I think most of this would have blown over. Most of it. But since people with those older phones didn’t know what the fix did or that replacing their battery might restore a lot of performance, they felt that Apple WAS trying to degrade phone performance to sell new phones.

As I said, it was inevitable that the software slowing CPU performance would be discovered and this is the the reason I don’t think it was an intentional attempt by Apple to sell new phones. I think someone in software had a quick fix and people higher up the decision chain didn’t think about the ramifications. Because if they did know and understand then they were pretty stupid.

 

[faded_glory]

MacOS is a disaster. I actually believe Windows 10 currently is less problematic and crashes at a far lower rate than High Sierra but I have no proof just my own observations.

I couldn't disagree more. I downloaded and installed macOS the day it first appeared. I haven't had a single problem with it from that day to this. Installing Windows 10 and working with it on a Wintel box quickly led me to the exact same problems I had with XP - system slow downs, idiotic behaviour, crashes, etc. Little has changed in Windows-land.

 

[iamtheonlyone4ever]

You can sue anyone you want. And lots of armchair lawyers already working for free for Apple.

yes you can sue anybody you want but if I sue someone I want to win the case , there is no point to sue if you are going to loose the case. not only is a lost case is also a lost cause
[doublepost=1516126038][/doublepost]

So why haven't we seen countless lawsuits in the past for the security exploits found in Windows (for example)? How many people over the years have had their computers hijacked by a virus or malware? Why aren't they filing to hold Microsoft responsible?

The answer is simple. Because they don't have a case. It's literally impossible to produce software that's 100% bug free. There will always be exploits discovered (esp in something as complex as an OS). All someone like Microsoft can do is take the necessary steps to make their software as secure as possible when the design it, and when exploits arrive to patch them as soon as possible.

The same thing applies to this processor bug. Apple, Intel and others didn't intentionally design the flaw. They were looking at making the fastest processors possible, and someone found an exploit with their method. Now that exploit is being patched. This is all that can reasonably be expected of them to do. You can't protect against every possible vulnerability in hardware/software. To imply that Apple or Intel should be held to such a ridiculous standard is beyond asinine.

agree 100%

 

[EdT]

yes you can sue anybody you want but if I sue someone I want to win the case , there is no point to sue if you are going to loose the case. not only is a lost case is also a lost cause

Some people still sue even if they are told that they will lose. Some because they don’t believe that they will lose and some because it’s the principle of the thing. Frivolous lawsuits abound here in the US.

 

[iamtheonlyone4ever]

I didn't say there was a case. The question I reacted to assumed that Apple was not designing their own processors. I pointed out the mistake and I simply explained what is happening at the moment. Subtle difference.
Stick to the subject. I can easily point to a thousand other things to sue as well, but that does not change what is happening here at the moment. How it plays out is anybody's guess. You are reading to much in my answer.

ok either you are confused or maybe I'm wrong, this is what I know, intel design CPU's for apple in Macs, so far so good but my doubt is, the processors that apple uses in iPhones and iPads, the A chips are they ARM CPU? so if that is the case well even the ones created by apple are also affected, so if iPhones are affected then that means that the CPU's inside iPhones are ARM, don't blame everything on Intel. this was not done intentionally,

let me give you an example, let's take Sony PS2, the exploit to play copies from original PS2 games, you think that SONY intentionally left or created that as an option for others to exploit their console so people can play pirate copies in their console , of course not , is just happened that someone found a vulnerability an exploited, there was more that 1 way , the one with the original PS1 game , SONY found out and patched the console then the ESR patch in the disk, so you see this is nobody fault, if you want to blame someone , blame the hacker, sometime these things are easy to find , in that case is the company's fault but sometimes even if they do an excellent job , the person looking for a way to exploit something will find a way even if it takes months or years

 

[dypeterc]

The issue is that Apple like many other companies are trying to contract out any of their liabilities which is unlawful in several countries. In my opinion, the above is typical example of that where one must accept this in order to use any of their products. In Australia, it can be seen as one sided contract. To quote Competition and Consumer act - "unfair" contracts will be set aside if one sided contract creates a “significant imbalance” between the parties, is not reasonably necessary to protect the benefiting party’s legitimate interests and would cause detriment to the other party.
ACCC (consumer watchdog) specifically points out that unfair agreements have themes of unilateral variation of rights and wide indemnities.
My 2c.
Cheers

How is the EULA one-sided? It protects both the customer and Apple. It provides protection for the consumer in regards to warranty. It also indemnified Apple that they will support the product. How is there a “significant imbalance” being caused by having your phone operate without unexpected shutdowns? Seems like Apple has significantly improved the customer’s experience. Also, there are many choices available for smartphones and one is not forced into buying and therefore accepting the EULA.

 

[iamtheonlyone4ever]

Some people still sue even if they are told that they will lose. Some because they don’t believe that they will lose and some because it’s the principle of the thing. Frivolous lawsuits abound here in the US.

I believe you there are people like that, but I personally won't do it but that doesn't mean that other person won't do it.

 

[Act3]

So why haven't we seen countless lawsuits in the past for the security exploits found in Windows (for example)? How many people over the years have had their computers hijacked by a virus or malware? Why aren't they filing to hold Microsoft responsible?

The answer is simple. Because they don't have a case. It's literally impossible to produce software that's 100% bug free. There will always be exploits discovered (esp in something as complex as an OS). All someone like Microsoft can do is take the necessary steps to make their software as secure as possible when the design it, and when exploits arrive to patch them as soon as possible.

The same thing applies to this processor bug. Apple, Intel and others didn't intentionally design the flaw. They were looking at making the fastest processors possible, and someone found an exploit with their method. Now that exploit is being patched. This is all that can reasonably be expected of them to do. You can't protect against every possible vulnerability in hardware/software. To imply that Apple or Intel should be held to such a ridiculous standard is beyond asinine.

imagine a design flaw in the processor of a self driving vehicle that results in serious injury or death. so no one should get sued because the design was unintentional? I didn't know that qualifies for a "get out of jail free card"

 

[MacBH928]

If anything we should stand by Apple. Its one of the rare companies that actually cares about the privacy of the user and not sell their data

 

[TiggrToo]

imagine a design flaw in the processor of a self driving vehicle that results in serious injury or death. so no one should get sued because the design was unintentional? I didn't know that qualifies for a "get out of jail free card"

Again, what's with all these most inane and ridiculous car analogies? This is a smartphone for Pete's sake! It's no more like car than a hippopotamus is a giraffe...

Amazes me how folk have managed to make this crazy leap of logic just because both contain a battery, a display, and a collection of logic circuits. What's next, comparing it to the Space Shuttle?

 

[AndyMacAndMic]

ok either you are confused or maybe I'm wrong, this is what I know, intel design CPU's for apple in Macs, so far so good but my doubt is, the processors that apple uses in iPhones and iPads, the A chips are they ARM CPU? so if that is the case well even the ones created by apple are also affected, so if iPhones are affected then that means that the CPU's inside iPhones are ARM, don't blame everything on Intel. this was not done intentionally,

let me give you an example, let's take Sony PS2, the exploit to play copies from original PS2 games, you think that SONY intentionally left or created that as an option for others to exploit their console so people can play pirate copies in their console , of course not , is just happened that someone found a vulnerability an exploited, there was more that 1 way , the one with the original PS1 game , SONY found out and patched the console then the ESR patch in the disk, sir you see this is nobody fault, if you want to blame someone , blame the hacker, sometime these things are easy to find , in that case is the company's fault but sometimes even if they do an excellent job , the person looking for a way to exploit something will find a way even if it takes months or years

No I am not confused (but you are confusing me now a bit ).. I did not say 'blame everything on Intel'. If someone has to be blamed it are all the manufactures of affected CPU's ((Intel, AMD, Apple, ARM, Samsung, Qualcomm etc.). But I highly doubt if that will stick.

The Axx processors in the iPhones (where Apple is sued about) are based on ARM technology and designed and manufactured by Apple. Apple stated that their Axx processors are affected by SPECTRE and MELTDOWN.
Since Intel (and probably others as well) is already sued for designing and manufacturing CPUs with this flaw it is in the line of expectation that all manufacturers of flawed CPUs will be sued including Apple. (and probably also AMD, ARM, Qualcomm etc.?). Maybe Apple in their turn will sue ARM and Intel, who knows? It's a mess and a lot of CPU manufacturers are affected. Maybe Microsoft will sue Intel too? Nobody can say for sure.

Whether the suers have a case is highly debatable, but my opinion does not matter in this since I was simply explaining to someone why Apple was sued for this as well. That someone thought Apple had nothing to do with those CPUs. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[iamtheonlyone4ever]

imagine a design flaw in the processor of a self driving vehicle that results in serious injury or death. so no one should get sued because the design was unintentional? I didn't know that qualifies for a "get out of jail free card"

tell that to Toyota, remember the sticky gas pedal, it doesn't matter how many times we go around in circles, somethings are always going to fail eventually, people buy things ands they expect to be perfect and work for ever, you have to change the pads in your car if you want you car to stop. well at least they found the problem before putting this old technology in the new self driving cars, I don't expect self driving cars to be perfect, so if someone get run over then who's fault it is, the person crossing the street knowing that there are self driving cars that can malfunction at any time, the manufacturer that created the card , the card owner that maybe didn't read the owners manual or don't take good care of the car, the cat has 4 legs that thing that you see in the back is not a 5th leg , is a tail
[doublepost=1516128527][/doublepost]

No I am not confused. The Axx processors in the iPhones (where Apple is sued about) are based on ARM technology and designed and manufactured by Apple. Apple stated that their Axx processors are affected by SPECTRE and MELTDOWN.
Since Intel is already sued for designing and manufacturing CPUs with this flaw it is in the line of expectation that all manufactures of flawed CPUs will be sued including Apple. (and maybe also AMD, ARM, Qualcomm etc.?).

If the people who are suing have a case is highly debatable, but my opinion does not matter in this since I was simply explaining to someone why Apple was sued for this as well, because that someone thought Apple had nothing to do with those CPUs. Nothing more, nothing less.

fair enough

 

[deferredAnon]

tell that to Toyota, remember the sticky gas pedal, it doesn't matter how many times we go around in circles, something always is going to fail eventually, people buy things ands they expect to be perfect and work for ever, you have to change the pads in your car if you want you car to stop. well at least they found the problem before putting this old technology in the new self driving cars, I don't expect self driving cars to be perfect, so if someone get run over then who's fault it is, the person crossing the street knowing that there are self driving cars that can malfunction at any time, the manufacturer that created the card , the card owner that maybe didn't read the owners manual or don't take good care of the car, the cat has 4 legs that thing that you see in the back is not a 5th leg , is a tail

Zomg. I have never seen anyone blaming the pedestrian for a car problem.

 

[Act3]

Again, what's with all these most inane and ridiculous car analogies? This is a smartphone for Pete's sake! It's no more like car than a hippopotamus is a giraffe...

Amazes me how folk have managed to make this crazy leap of logic just because both contain a battery, a display, and a collection of logic circuits. What's next, comparing it to the Space Shuttle?

the analogies aren't saying cars are similar to iphones in a physical sense

 

[themastermind]

I couldn't disagree more. I downloaded and installed macOS the day it first appeared. I haven't had a single problem with it from that day to this. Installing Windows 10 and working with it on a Wintel box quickly led me to the exact same problems I had with XP - system slow downs, idiotic behaviour, crashes, etc. Little has changed in Windows-land.

I agree wholeheartedly. MacOS has been excellent for me, and the few times I have had issues are far outweighed by the many many issues I had when I was on Windows. It seemed like when I was on Windows that I spent most of my time fixing the OS itself and issues, applying updates, workarounds, etc., but on MacOS I spend most of my time working.

The OS should work for you, not against you. Maybe Windows has gotten better lately, I don't know, but MacOS is a good OS.

 

[deanthedev]

imagine a design flaw in the processor of a self driving vehicle that results in serious injury or death. so no one should get sued because the design was unintentional? I didn't know that qualifies for a "get out of jail free card"

Imagine self driving cars with excellent safety records, then some criminal discovers an obscure exploit, hacks into a car and modifies the software via this exploit. A passenger dies as a result.

Who’s at fault? The vehicle manufacturer or the criminal who modified the software?

 

[Act3]

Imagine self driving cars with excellent safety records, then some criminal discovers an obscure exploit, hacks into a car and modifies the software via this exploit. A passenger dies as a result.

Who’s at fault? The vehicle manufacturer or the criminal who modified the software?

really depends on when the vehicle manufacturer knew of the fault...if they knew about it 6 months ago and then still sold the car with the exploit still possible ,without letting the end user know, both are at fault.

 

[AFEPPL]

If anything we should stand by Apple. Its one of the rare companies that actually cares about the privacy of the user and not sell their data

But they also need holding to account for what they've done with the battery software and I hope they will pay heavily for it in court. But Meltdown is something different, be it intel, arm or apple.

 

[fourthtunz]

I couldn't disagree more. I downloaded and installed macOS the day it first appeared. I haven't had a single problem with it from that day to this. Installing Windows 10 and working with it on a Wintel box quickly led me to the exact same problems I had with XP - system slow downs, idiotic behaviour, crashes, etc. Little has changed in Windows-land.

Exactly! I have friends that are staying on Windows 7 because they say 10 is a cluster.
You could not pay me to use windows.

 

[AFEPPL]

Exactly! I have friends that are staying on Windows 7 because they say 10 is a cluster.
You could not pay me to use windows.

Win10 has been rock solid and more stable than MacOS for me... which is amazing given its a closed wall system for apple.

 

[BurgDog]

Like most cars today, my car accelerates more gradually if traction is poor. It's there to make the overall driving experience better and safer. Same deal with CPU throttling found on most every portable computer; lower performance to provide better endurance. The only thing mission from iOS is allowing users to make the choice but the fact is that 99% will choose battery life over performance.

Depends on what you need at the moment. I expect a choice, not something forced on me. It is like Ford noting that my fuel tank is half full and most people prefer miles over performance and caps my speed at 55 dropping that as the tank gets closer to empty. And not telling me my fuel is getting low.