Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Florida Lawyer Sues Apple for Renting HD Movies on Non-HD Devices

BaldiMac said:
That logic ignores the fact that you can transfer rentals to other devices, so there is a legitimate reason to offer HD content on non-HD devices.
Click to expand...

but his logic ignores that fact that you are just temporarily renting the item and therefore, you are not likely to view it on another device. If anything, it should be the other way around.
 
nagromme said:
Not entirely true, I don't think: if you rent on a Mac/PC iTunes, you can transfer TO an iOS device. You can also transfer from one Mac/PC to another. But you cannot transfer a rental FROM an iOS device, last I knew. (And I think you should be able to.)
Click to expand...

Shrug, I've never had issues..

http://support.apple.com/kb/PH1705

I've never tried renting on my iPhone and transferring it to the AppleTV .. so far - just got it.. mostly use a Mac Mini as HTPC.. Have Airplayed from a MacBook Pro to the AppleTV tho...
 
Lancer said:
Seriously?

I wouldn't sue, especially if it was for renting 'Big Daddy' :rolleyes:

This is right up there with suing because your coffee is too hot!
Click to expand...

I'm totally against frivolous lawsuits, but you should really check out the real reason she sued for hot coffee. It's not just about the scalding hot coffee to her legs and "other" areas (3rd degree burns), it's about how McDonald's business practices and their cover up of it that really won the lawsuit for the old lady. There's a good documentary about it.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com

It's on Netflix, http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Hot_Coffee/70167106
 
This lawsuit is nonsense since you can move rented content between devices as many times as you wish during the rental period, so he may have rented on his iPhone but then could move and watch it on his HDTV later (which supports HD).
 
I hate these kind of law suits and prick cases.

I like the choice of HD or SD, rent or buy even when on a non HD device.

If I buy anything it's to keep for my lifetime, if I then get a HD i device then surely I should have had the option if it was available no matter what.

I would hate for some prick to have sued when I believe the opposite is actually true that if i wasn't allowed to have HD I would want to ensure apple to have it available.

Money grabbing wasters.
 
Never has the first world problems meme seem more appropriate.

I do understand that in the long run it could add up to a substantial amount over all iOS users making the same mistake, but this is something I'd submit as a bug report rather than go all SUUUUUUUUE
 
nagromme said:
Apple screwed up, no question, and should return the extra dollar to everyone who made this mistake--nay, they should DOUBLE that amount as penalty. Even if that's many dozens of people. Then add legal fees.

(Assuming Apple refused a refund, which I've never known them to do. It's been downright painless, even when the mistake is mine.)




Not entirely true, I don't think: if you rent on a Mac/PC iTunes, you can transfer TO an iOS device. You can also transfer from one Mac/PC to another. But you cannot transfer a rental FROM an iOS device, last I knew. (And I think you should be able to.)
Click to expand...

You can transfer purchases from an iOS device to iTunes, doesn't that also work for rentals?
 
sclawis300 said:
but his logic ignores that fact that you are just temporarily renting the item and therefore, you are not likely to view it on another device. If anything, it should be the other way around.
Click to expand...

:confused: What should be the other way around? According to the article, the lawyer purposely bought HD content. "Likely" has nothing to do with it. Why would Apple override his specific choice?
 
What an ******. The legal system is already overloaded with frivolous lawsuits and patent trolls.

If being a douchebag was a crime HE'D be sued.
 
stiligFox said:
Never has the first world problems meme seem more appropriate.

I do understand that in the long run it could add up to a substantial amount over all iOS users making the same mistake, but this is something I'd submit as a bug report rather than go all SUUUUUUUUE
Click to expand...

You don't get national publicity and possibly some dough by doing the sensible thing and submitting a report.
 
odedia said:
I actually agree with this one for a change. It's a classic "lets try to get away with it" scenario. The vast population wouldnt notice the fact that they paid the extra for no reason. And HD sounds like "It's much better!". These are millions and millions of dollars apple makes without giving the customer the premium product he paid for.
Click to expand...

Only time will tell, but what you're saying with Apple having made "millions" relies on a few things:
1. "Millions and millions" of people have made this mistake and not cared.
2. Apple gets the dollar, instead of it going to a hollywood entity.

My guess is that it's a number in the thousands, and that Apple gets a small fraction of that extra dollar. It's really not worth it for Apple to intentionally be doing this imho.

Sometimes class action lawsuits are just a way to get companies to fix their mistakes.
Click to expand...

I completely agree that sometimes they are useful, and that it's one of the better ways to curb a corporations nasty practices.

nagromme said:
Apple screwed up, no question, and should return the extra dollar to everyone who made this mistake--nay, they should DOUBLE that amount as penalty. Even if that's many dozens of people. Then add legal fees.

(Assuming Apple refused a refund, which I've never known them to do. It's been downright painless, even when the mistake is mine.)
Click to expand...

I think you should have lead with that last bit in the parentheses.

I see this entire thing as a huge sign of how amazing Apple is. Seriously. Consider this: Would anyone blame Amazon for not hacking something in that doesn't let you download HD content on unsupported devices? Would you blame the guy behind the brick and mortar counter for only letting you rent the VHS because even though you have a Blueray player, you only have a 20 y.o. tube TV? No, I don't think we would. We would recognize that as the personal mistake that it is. Technology is sometimes complex and confusing and takes an intentional effort to educate ones self to prevent mistakes.

Apple has created software and hardware products that on the whole do not require the same sort of intentional effort that many other products require. We expect Apple to protect us from ourselves, as if that's their responsibility inside the integrated would of software/hardware/cloud-store that we're so used to. But it's not an expectation that we hold for anyone else. So I see this as a good sign that Apple has been doing things very well, and this is just one tiny area where Apple could do better, but in the mean time they are no different than anyone else. Oh yeah, and you can get a refund if you make the mistake :cool:
 
you see apple, you really need to make a 1080p iphone and not to mention it should be sporting a quad-core chip.
 
To a point, I agree with the plaintiff. I'd like to see the default be the SD version of a video; that works on all devices. If someone wants the HD version, let them opt-in (as opposed to the current default of forcing somebody who wants to pay less to opt out).
 
I half agree.

There is the possibility that someone renting via iPhone also has another device that supports HD.

Seems like the most logical thing Apple should do is put up a box that says "This device doesn't support HD resolution. Buy anyway? Y/N"
 
The real crime is charging extra for HD to begin with. Especially "HD" when it's encoded at 6Mbps.
 
Imagine this scenario. I'm on my way home and browsing through movies (for argument's sake let's say I'm on the subway). I see Big Daddy and want to rent it so I can watch it on my Apple TV when I get home. Apple detects that I'm using an ancient phone that can't display HD content and won't let me rent it. Now everyone jumps in on the "walled garden" and "Apple knows what is good for you" statements.

Since there are clear use cases where customers with SD devices would rent HD content, the most that Apple could be expected to do is to ask "Are you really sure you want to do this?"

So, there is no way this guy wins this lawsuit (not a lawyer), since there are other remedies available. I guarantee that if he contacted Apple and explained his situation it would have been resolved with a refund. He just wanted cheap publicity.
 
sclawis300 said:
but his logic ignores that fact that you are just temporarily renting the item and therefore, you are not likely to view it on another device. If anything, it should be the other way around.
Click to expand...

It's obvious that only a complete imbecile would rent a HD movie on a device that cannot display it (and if you have an iPhone, even if the resolution was high enough it would still be stupid), unless they own an Apple TV and actually _can_ display HD movies on their TV.

I'd say Apple should offer to pay him $1,000 - under the condition that this lawyer states under oath that he was too stupid to find the SD movie, and Apple has permission to publish this wherever they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back