Apple Will Face Lawsuit Over Phone-Switching iMessage Issue

[C DM]

Lawyer: Will make money.

Everyone else: Will maybe get a 5-dollar iTunes GC or an Apple Store GC for the same amount. Which may or may not be worth anything to them if they're no longer using iPhones or Apple products.

This is a pointless lawsuit, unless you're a lawyer.

Conveniently overlooking the more obvious group:

Apple users affected by these types of issues: Will finally hopefully not be running into these issues and won't have to waste time trying to run around in circles trying out random workarounds to try to resolve things that shouldn't have been a problem to begin with.

 

[bunnicula]

Conveniently overlooking the more obvious group:

Apple users affected by these types of issues: Will finally hopefully not be running into these issues and won't have to waste time trying to run around in circles trying out random workarounds to try to resolve things that shouldn't have been a problem to begin with.

I suppose. But, I doubt this will be the bulk of the people complaining.

I've never had an issue with it at all.

 

[26139]

Agreed

She is also suing because the existing text messages didn't come over. Every time I changed phones either I needed to move or lose existing text messages. That move was a backup and restore program.

This woman is an idiot.

THAT part is stupid.

But do you agree that iMessage locking people's numbers down without an easy fix is Apple's fault?

 

[C DM]

I suppose. But, I doubt this will be the bulk of the people complaining.

I've never had an issue with it at all.

But, again, plenty of people have. Not sure what the other people would be complaing about and how that would be even remotely the bulk of it.

 

[bunnicula]

But, again, plenty of people have. Not sure what the other people would be complaing about and how that would be even remotely the bulk of it.

Everyone I know that has griped about it are people who went from iPhone to Android and had trouble getting their text messages.

 

[C DM]

Everyone I know that has griped about it are people who went from iPhone to Android and had trouble getting their text messages.

Right, those are basically the types of people who have been experiencing this issue. As well as those who are were trying to contact those people on their Apple devices without success (often not even realizing that was the case). That's essentially what this is about.

 

[ANTAWNM26]

This is the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit. Plus, it would be very hard to prove damage in this case.

Just don't get it but your partially right

 

[iphone495]

You have a good point, but...

You have a good point, but I said it's hard to prove damage because even though you pay for cellular service with your wireless carrier, iMessage itself is still a FREE service. When you pay for your monthly fee, you are paying for phone calls and texts that are sent via the good old telephone networks, and data that can be used for anything.

I hate most of these class-action lawsuits and legal actions over petty inconveniences. But frankly, this one strikes me as legitimate.

When you pay the (not insignificant) monthly fees for phone service with SMS and data, you expect to receive the basic services promised. Considering all of the phone handsets that are subsidized by the carriers as part of getting into service contracts with them, and in many cases, the limitations placed on the hardware (phones locked to the carrier and/or custom apps loaded that can't be removed)? I think it's easy to establish the fact that the service and the handset are essentially bundled together as a "product". (Smartphones without service plans aren't too useful, and nobody I know subscribes to a cellular plan when they don't own a phone handset!)

It's great that Apple released a fix for the issue NOW, but how many people went months and months with SMS service broken while Apple spouted off the line about "we have no way to fix the issue"?

 

[TheHateMachine]

You are correct that in those circumstances you could not do anything. Which is why I mentioned that what he said was not a full defense (and why I think the suit has merit). He merely pointed out that most people had an active way to prevent the problem... by logging out before switching. Nothing in the article (I.e. your "read the full article" jab) changes that... What he said still remains true. Would have been far more informative to people reading that have no idea about the subject to point out those situations... rather than ripping the guy...

Logging out before switching did not always prevent the problem, people still had the issue. If it was the fix then it would have been in the article and would have been spread around the community for members having this issue as a fix. Anyone immediate jumping to the comments and blindly leaping to the defense of their favoured corporation without reading an article deserve to be called out.

 

[mtneer]

Imagine if you purchased a PC from Dell, and you got your e-mail is an account at your Internet Service Provider, let's say Comcast (just cause it's a name that most know, certainly not because it's the best).

Later, you decide you don't want to use a Dell computer anymore, and you buy a Mac. But, even though you've set your brand new Mac up to connect to your Internet Service Provider, you are unable to receive your email. You didn't change your e-mail address, you're still using the same Internet Service Provider (unfortunately Comcast). And, yet you cannot get your e-mails to be received on your shiny new expensive Mac.

People are sending their messages to you the same as they always have, you've properly set up your new machine on the same ISP, and yet nothing arrives in your inbox.

You then call Apple for support, and yet they can't help you. You call Comcast, and they can't help you. You call Dell, and find out that your e-mail address is forever tied to that Dell computer. You will not receive e-mail messages from other people who use Dell computers. And, they provide you no way to get your email messages ever again from any other Dell computer user, unless you either buy another Dell computer or go back to using your old Dell computer. Now, for entertainment purposes, we are going to pretend that Dell holds 60 to 70 percent of the computer market.

If you had purchased your last machine from anyone other than Dell, you'd still be getting your email messages.

Who do you think you're going to blame that issue on?

Let's assume Dell ignores your requests to fix this problem for you... now what?

Sure, you could get a new e-mail address. But, that's not always practical, some people have a lot of things tied up with their current phone numbers and e-mail addresses. In some cases, changing your contact information could cost you a lot of business (because who can really go and update everyone who's received a published phone book immediately).

All of this because you naively assumed that you could buy a new computer and connect it to your same ISP and everything would be OK (as everyone would have expected).

I bet if we adapted the current story to fit the names and situation above, all the Apple defenders would be screaming to burn Dell to the ground.

This is the very same scenario. And, the very actions that are illegal and penalized under monopoly laws. And, it doesn't have to be deliberately created to function this way. If the end result is this effect, it will be penalized. Particularly when a company is not responsive to immediately resolving the issue upon first becoming aware of it.

First of all, thanks for taking the time to write up an explanation. But, I still do not see this situation as similar. Apple is not blocking all text messaging for their former customers, they are just cutting them off from iMessage.

In your analogy, if you setup an @comcast.net email account and then when you move to another ISP; do you think its reasonable that you can demand access to their domain? No.. you would just migrate to cox.net or charter or whoever your new email provider would be - or you would signup for another standard email like gmail.

Apple users had every means to remove iMessage when they left the ecosytem. Why is Apple expected to support former customers once they have made the choice to leave? You have to pay, to play...

 

[C DM]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to write up an explanation. But, I still do not see this situation as similar. Apple is not blocking all text messaging for their former customers, they are just cutting them off from iMessage.

In your analogy, if you setup an @comcast.net email account and then when you move to another ISP; do you think its reasonable that you can demand access to their domain? No.. you would just migrate to cox.net or charter or whoever your new email provider would be - or you would signup for another standard email like gmail.

Apple users had every means to remove iMessage when they left the ecosytem. Why is Apple expected to support former customers once they have made the choice to leave? You have to pay, to play...

There's a misconception at play here as to how it all works. Apple decides for you what it will send as iMessage and what it will send as SMS. So, if someone no longer uses iMessage but Apple somehow doesn't realize it the messages someone will try to send to that person will be sent as iMessage and not get delivered to that person. The sender doesn't really get a choice to choose not to send an iMessage to that person, Apple makes that decision for them, that's the issue.

If we use your analogy of a @comcast.net account, it would be the same as you moving to another provider and having another email address, but when people try to email you their ISP would on its own select and default to sending it to your non-existing @comcast.net account without letting those people even choose to send it to another account. Who is at fault here? Seems like the ISP defaulting to some no longer existing email address is certainly the problem. It doesn't really happen like that with email, which is why it's not a good analogy, but that's the closest it can be described as if one wanted to use an email analogy.

 

[BigInDallas]

Easy solution. Don't switch to a non-iOS device!

Hence the lawsuit.

 

[Tech198]

Agree 100%. Game Over... Stick in another quarter to try again.

This court system and Apple feeling embarrassed could have easily been avoided if they only did iMessage right to begin with..

Give the user a button that simply says "De-register" within the app which would unlink their phone number...

Apple sure like to play hard ball don't they..

 

[pragmatous]

Apple is clearly in the wrong here.

Fact: People were missing text messages
Fact: Text messages could be job related
Fact: Text messaging is an essential function of a phone
Fact: Apple has allowed this to happen for 2+ years

Now Apple needs to prove that it was a technical limitation that limited the ability to do so and they solved whatever problem that was causing it. Otherwise it would appear to be an intent.

Remember it's all about intent. It has nothing to do with text messages. It's about the intent.

I love apple products by the way. I own a macbook pro 2014, iPhone 6, iPad air 2, and an apple time capsule.

 

[flyinmac]

First of all, thanks for taking the time to write up an explanation. But, I still do not see this situation as similar. Apple is not blocking all text messaging for their former customers, they are just cutting them off from iMessage.

In your analogy, if you setup an @comcast.net email account and then when you move to another ISP; do you think its reasonable that you can demand access to their domain? No.. you would just migrate to cox.net or charter or whoever your new email provider would be - or you would signup for another standard email like gmail.

Apple users had every means to remove iMessage when they left the ecosytem. Why is Apple expected to support former customers once they have made the choice to leave? You have to pay, to play...

In my illustration, the service provider wasn't changed. Only the brand of computer was changed. Which is why your take on the analogy doesn't work.

 

[C DM]

In my illustration, the service provider wasn't changed. Only the brand of computer was changed. Which is why your take on the analogy doesn't work.

Looks like you quoted the right person after the latest edit.

 

[flyinmac]

Looks like you quoted the right person after the latest edit.

Yep. Got it straighted out. Little buttons on iPhone. Somehow I clicked wrong post first.

 

[Santabean2000]

So you completely ignored the facts that many people couldn't resolve this on their own or even with Apple's suggested solutions? Or that the comment about the lawsuit was made to say that it seems it was unfortunately necessary because nothing else was getting Apple to actually face and deal with the problem? I guess when reality is ignored then all kinds of comments can be made...it's just that they simply don't apply to the situation.

I'm not denying there's a problem. But it's tiny. Barely registering above completely insignificant.

I'm just trying to highlight the fact that this is NOT worthy of court action.

It's a money making exercise pure and simple. Courts are not (or should not) be hijacked by opportunists.

[It really is an American way of thinking that believes it is. And exactly the sort of thinking that the rest of the just shakes their head at.]

What a joke.

 

[C DM]

I'm not denying there's a problem. But it's tiny. Barely registering above completely insignificant.

I'm just trying to highlight the fact that this is NOT worthy of court action.

It's a money making exercise pure and simple. Courts are not (or should not) be hijacked by opportunists.

[It really is an American way of thinking that believes it is. And exactly the sort of thinking that the rest of the just shakes their head at.]

What a joke.

And more misconceptions again. The issue isn't tiny, not sure where that idea is coming from. Those who run into these issues, and there are quite a few of them, certainly experience problems that are big enough for them. And as far as a lawsuit goes again, ignoring that it has already served as a way to get Apple to actual face and deal with the issue and simply go with the usual stereotype that it's about the money, is simply not really thinking about it much and just going with generalizations. Thanks to that "American" thinking Apple is finally doing something about the issue after all these years, but that's clearly not important and should be ignored, right?

 

[uknowimright]

This should be quite obvious that if you switch to an android device you will not be able to use iMessage, you should have noticed that it does not work at all when you message your android buddies... unless you are the biggest moron on earth you need to be advised about this fact...

No. Imagine you were on AT&T with a phone number of 123-456-7890. Now, you leave AT&T without notifying them and start with Verizon, forcing them to give you 123-456-7890 on their network (not possible, but work with me here). Now, there are 2 numbers floating around out there. Where do the calls go? Who is on the hook? You for not telling AT&T or AT&T for not simply releasing your number after several weeks of you not answering a call?

Wow! Maybe I can sue Chevrolet because all those old parts I bought when I had that old Chevy don't fit my new Ford!

ALL STAR comments, good job guys!

 

[cfedu]

ALL STAR comments, good job guys!

The fail is strong with these ones

 

[Swytch]

Common sense tells you that if you change your phone number that you'll have to inform people of the change.

We have a law that requires phone companies to let you move your phone number between carriers and other phones. As such, it is expected that you do not need to inform all your friends and business contacts that you now have a Samsung phone. And what good would it do anyway? You still have the same phone number you had before. There is nothing they would be doing differently to send you a text. They'd still be sending it to the same phone number, and everyone with common sense would expect the message to be delivered to that phone number.

Apples implementation prevented the delivery of text messages from going to the subscribers phone number.

In all actuality, there is no benefit to iMessages. It is simply a trap. I myself never enabled it. And I avoided it because it does not offer me any benefit over my cellular texting service. I don't need my texts routed through a 3rd party.

But in the end, Apple created and pushed their iMessage interface. They didn't tell anyone that it would forever prevent you from taking your existing phone number to another phone.

And, when people exercised their legal right to move to a different company's phone while keeping their same phone number, Apple prevented the delivery of their text messages.

They used a monopoly practice to lock their customers into iPhone. This is an even clearer violation of laws regulating monopoly practices than the whole Internet Explorer legal sanctions.

In the case of Microsoft, they were found to have violated laws regarding Monopolies, even though you could still use Netscape and other browsers without interference.

In this case, Apple has specifically interfered with people's rights to use another competing phone manufacturer.

Everything you are saying is, again, assuming that Apple did this intentionally... which it is very doubtful that they did.

Additionally, as you stated it is common sense that when you stop using a service you will have to inform people to stop contacting you via that service. iMessages is a service and it is separate from your carrier and even separate from your iPhone. And as you stated has to be turned on by a user. If i stop using skype, I would need to tell people i can no longer receive messages via skype (same would apply to AIM, FaceBook, etc).

Yes, most people may not realize that when they change from an iPhone they are also discontinuing iMessage service - but they should pay more attention when they enable features and they would be aware of this.

 

[C DM]

Everything you are saying is, again, assuming that Apple did this intentionally... which it is very doubtful that they did.

Additionally, as you stated it is common sense that when you stop using a service you will have to inform people to stop contacting you via that service. iMessages is a service and it is separate from your carrier and even separate from your iPhone. And as you stated has to be turned on by a user. If i stop using skype, I would need to tell people i can no longer receive messages via skype (same would apply to AIM, FaceBook, etc).

Yes, most people may not realize that when they change from an iPhone they are also discontinuing iMessage service - but they should pay more attention when they enable features and they would be aware of this.

The problem is that iMessage simply attaches to regular SMS and takes over that, there isn't a service you stop using per se because people still always simply messaged you using your phone number which is what SMS uses and what iMessage ends up taking over. So when you are not using it anymore the takeover should be done and simply regular SMS would be used with people still using the same old phone number they always used for you, whether you had iMessage or not. That's where the difference is and that's where the issue lies. All these other analogies are simply not the same because they don't have one service using the same identifier as another service as is the case for iMessage simply using your phone number as SMS does and selecting which one should be used on its own based on what Apple servers say.

 

[tooloud10]

iMessage sends data to other iOS users, and texts to non-iOS users.

No, the iMessage feature most certainly does not send texts to non-iOS users. The iMessage function is not the same as the SMS function. It seems apparent that some users think they're sending an SMS when they're actually sending an iMessage; this has nothing to do with Apple.

Without an easy way to tell Apple's servers that your number was no longer an iOS number, the iMessage app continued to try to send data instead of a text.

Absolutely, because the user that's sending the message has manually activated the iMessage feature on their phone. That is, the user has chosen to use a non-SMS system to send a message to a recipient that has chosen to no longer use the service.

SMS does support read receipts. Used to be that apps would let you check a box if you wanted one.

Never seen it, and I have three phones on three major carriers.

See above. SMS messages were blocked (i.e. never sent) because Apple's servers mistakenly told the sender's device that the recipient was still an iOS user.

Nope, no SMS messages were ever even sent or blocked because the person sending the message has chosen to use iMessage instead of SMS. It's a perfectly simple process for me to choose to send an SMS from my iPhone instead of an iMessage, and vice-versa.

 

[Tough Guy]

It seems like it's ALWAYS a woman filing these types of lawsuits. I think it's a cultural issue where North American women are taught to not take responsibility for their own actions. "It's always someone else's fault" is the mantra of the modern North American female. There's a major sense of entitlement as well.