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

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,553
2,886
I dunno, makes sense to me that there should at least be a notification that the device won't play the film in HD.

It's a shame that he has to sue for this, but it's also a huge shame you need this kind of action to get big companies to move.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors 604
Jan 24, 2008
7,404
5,773
Apple's marketing of movies is misleading in this regard. You can transfer purchases but NOT rentals, which is NOT stated on the movies page, which advertises rentals. Even when you rent something, there is NO warning to inform you of that.
The fine print is that you can only transfer one way, but not the other, which defeats the whole it just works philosophy.
If anything, sue on those grounds.
You could transfer rentals on the iPhone 3GS and earlier.

I dunno, makes sense to me that there should at least be a notification that the device won't play the film in HD.

It's a shame that he has to sue for this, but it's also a huge shame you need this kind of action to get big companies to move.
Apple already moved before they were sued. The lawsuit acknowledges that Apple already added notifications.
 

thelatinist

macrumors 603
Aug 15, 2009
5,933
49
Connecticut, USA
I don't think people are appreciating the real sneakiness of this. The whole point of this is to get a judgment or settlement, however insignificant, and then petition the court to make Apple pay his exhorbitant attorney fees (which, since he is representing himself, will go right into his own pocket). He's just creating work for himself at everyone else's expense.
 

zorinlynx

macrumors 603
May 31, 2007
5,529
6,467
Florida, USA
I'm betting the extra dollar merely goes towards paying for the additional bandwidth, and thus Apple keeps all of it.

Either way, this guy is an idiot and is just trying to make a quick buck. I'm sure if he wins he will allocate a fairly sizable part of the settlement to himself for his own "fees". Meanwhile the people who supposedly got "screwed" will probably just get a free iTunes rental (which costs Apple basically nothing)
 

BaldiMac

macrumors 604
Jan 24, 2008
7,404
5,773
I'm betting the extra dollar merely goes towards paying for the additional bandwidth, and thus Apple keeps all of it.
You don't think the content owner gets paid more for an HD movie? I find that hard to believe.
 

ctdonath

macrumors 65816
Mar 11, 2009
1,468
421
I'm betting the extra dollar merely goes towards paying for the additional bandwidth
HD has more content than SD (that's the point of HD: more visual content a la higher resolution). The studios want to get paid for that additional content.

It's not like :apple: is given the HD copy and then just delivers every other row & column of pixels. :apple: pays for a separate source file containing more valuable content; it is, from a technical standpoint, a completely different movie with a higher price tag.
 

codewrangler

macrumors member
Jun 17, 2009
87
199
Dallas, TX
This guy is an idiot

I'm sure if he just emailed Apple, they would have adjusted the charge.

Did this guy run out of ambulances to chase? Why do people clog up the courts with ridiculous litigation? Waste of time and money.
 

j4zb4

macrumors 6502a
Oct 15, 2011
728
0
Sorry, should have quoted the post that you were responding to as well. It mentioned that you cant buy ipad apps on your iphone.
But the apps you buy on the phone you use on the phone... If I buy/rent a movie from my iPhone I can download it on my mac and on my iPad and on my PC... I can even stream it to my HDTV with AirPlay...
 

cube

macrumors P6
May 10, 2004
16,430
4,436
Can't you output FullHD from an iPhone to a TV ?

A different issue is that Lightning is crap.
 

j4zb4

macrumors 6502a
Oct 15, 2011
728
0
I agree with this, especially as I am someone who has suffered second degree burns from merely DRINKING McDonald's coffee, using my mouth as per normal coffee-drinking best practices. The first time, I thought it was just a mistake; the second time, after an occurance at another McD's, I realized it must have been company policy to set the coffee temp dangerously high. I do not patronize McD's since that time. But I'm glad that someone made the effort to prevent McD's from callously inflicting pain on thousands of people merely because it made their operation more efficient, or whatever theory motivated them.
Preference for hot coffee is very subjective... Some like it scalding hot, some hot, some like it Luke warm... If you serve a customers very hot coffees the people who prefer it less hot can just wait a bit for the coffee to cool off... But if you serve Luke warm as your standard coffee how can customers who like their coffees piping hot heat their coffees...?
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,497
3,094
Preference for hot coffee is very subjective... Some like it scalding hot, some hot, some like it Luke warm... If you serve a customers very hot coffees the people who prefer it less hot can just wait a bit for the coffee to cool off... But if you serve Luke warm as your standard coffee how can customers who like their coffees piping hot heat their coffees...?
People make mistakes. I often buy coffee, put it on a tray, carry it to a table. I'm notoriously careful, always carry it so it won't go on top of people if I drop it. There's probably a one in ten thousand chance that I would spill coffee on some person.

One in ten thousand means coffee gets spilled over an awful lot of people every year. Totally unavoidable. Now if that coffee is scalding hot, lots of people will be scalded. Scalding hot is the difference between annoyance and possibly lengthy hospital visit.

However, if a company's management is aware of this... and had literally hundreds of cases against them settled out of court... and continues serving dangerously hot coffee, because they offer free refills and scalding hot coffee means nobody takes them up on that offer which saves money... more money than they paid out to victims of that policy... then clearly the payouts must be made higher to stop them.
 

skottichan

macrumors 6502a
Oct 23, 2007
879
901
Columbus, OH
People make mistakes. I often buy coffee, put it on a tray, carry it to a table. I'm notoriously careful, always carry it so it won't go on top of people if I drop it. There's probably a one in ten thousand chance that I would spill coffee on some person.

One in ten thousand means coffee gets spilled over an awful lot of people every year. Totally unavoidable. Now if that coffee is scalding hot, lots of people will be scalded. Scalding hot is the difference between annoyance and possibly lengthy hospital visit.

However, if a company's management is aware of this... and had literally hundreds of cases against them settled out of court... and continues serving dangerously hot coffee, because they offer free refills and scalding hot coffee means nobody takes them up on that offer which saves money... more money than they paid out to victims of that policy... then clearly the payouts must be made higher to stop them.

The lack of sympathy from the suit is this. It's hot coffee, I can understand it tipping on a tray, but the woman who sued, took the lid off, after putting it between her thighs, in a moving car.

How is the spill McDonald's fault? Yes, the coffee is hot, but like the post above you said, it's easier for the consumer to let hot coffee cool, than it is to heat it up.

We need to stop protecting people like the McDonald's woman, and this lawyer. There was nothing malicious intent-wise in either this case or the McDonald's one.
 

Swytch

macrumors regular
Jan 24, 2006
150
0
So when I go to the AT&T store and the clerk sees me make a phone call on my iphone 4S while I am buying a iPhone 5 Case, I can then sue AT&T for not telling me the case I am buying wont fit on my iPhone 4S?

Or more specific to rentals, if I am playing my DS at blockbuster while checking out to rent a PSVita game, I can sue if they dont inform me its not compatible?

At the checkout at a Grocery Store the clerk overhears my wife tell me she is lactose intolerant, I can sue if they dont inform me the cheese we are buying has milk?

There are a million examples, it is not the stores responsibility to do research for you.

Again he could have had anotehr device capable of HD he was planning on watching on.

And really, HD content to watch exclusively on an iPhone screen (even a retina)? seems like a silly purchase in the first place to me, so if I were apple, I would assume that he would only select it if he knew he had something bigger to watch it on.

Would you even want to download HD content to a iPhone and take up all that space for something you cant truly enjoy without a bigger screen?

The only real issue I see here is that there is no way to download the HD version on a SD Only iPhone so it can be streamed to a device that supports HD playback but only has WiFi and no available internet access. However, who wants to download a full HD movie over Cellular data speeds?
 

Solomani

macrumors 68040
Sep 25, 2012
3,702
6,180
Alberto, Canado
People are ass hats when it comes to lawsuits.
Lawyers are not people.

----------

I don't think people are appreciating the real sneakiness of this. The whole point of this is to get a judgment or settlement, however insignificant, and then petition the court to make Apple pay his exhorbitant attorney fees (which, since he is representing himself, will go right into his own pocket). He's just creating work for himself at everyone else's expense.
Even IF this ****** lawyer wins, the most likely settlement forced on Apple would be to award some paltry $3 iTunes gift card for each customer affected. Which will be a very small number of people who actually were daft enough to purchase/download HD movies into their non-HD Apple hardware.

But the net loss is millions of dollars costing and tying up the US judicial system on this frivolous suit. But the lawyer will certainly get a few million in legal fees since he is "representing" the people, and himself.
 

malexandria

Suspended
Mar 25, 2009
970
426
Kind of right

is it frivolous? yes. but he has a point, it is very misleading to charge an HD premium for content that clearly isn't HD and not supported by your iDevices. Other companies like Vudu and Cinemanow detects whether your device is capable of delivering HD content or not and delivers the appropriate options. There's no reason Apple and iTunes can't do the same thing. Detect the device you are purchasing on and only deliver the options the device supports. Especially considering HD Digital Versions are almost always at a premium price - sometimes twice as much as SD.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors 604
Jan 24, 2008
7,404
5,773
Other companies like Vudu and Cinemanow detects whether your device is capable of delivering HD content or not and delivers the appropriate options. There's no reason Apple and iTunes can't do the same thing.
Apple does do the same thing.

Detect the device you are purchasing on and only deliver the options the device supports.
As pointed out multiple times, rentals were transferable, so there was a legitimate reason to purchase HD versions on an SD device.
 

designs216

macrumors 65816
Oct 26, 2009
1,042
11
Down the rabbit hole
Come on guy! You did something stupid -- take personal responsibility!

This reminds me of that lady that spilled the hot coffee she was unwisely clutching between her knees, then went after McD's for damages. I cannot believe juries pay people no matter how frivolous the suit.
 

BaldiMac

macrumors 604
Jan 24, 2008
7,404
5,773
This reminds me of that lady that spilled the hot coffee she was unwisely clutching between her knees, then went after McD's for damages. I cannot believe juries pay people no matter how frivolous the suit.
Because everyone should expect third degree burns requiring skin grafts from spilling a beverage! How could McDonald's reasonably expect anyone would spill their drink?!

:rolleyes:
 

malexandria

Suspended
Mar 25, 2009
970
426
Because everyone should expect third degree burns requiring skin grafts from spilling a beverage! How could McDonald's reasonably expect anyone would spill their drink?!

:rolleyes:
Agree. Such a tired, ill-informed comment. It turns out that McDonalds was repeatedly fined and warned about the temperature in the coffee, the lids were flimsy and any drink that causes major 3rd degree burns tells you it was brewed too hot and was "undrinkable" to begin with. I've spilled Tea or other hot beverages on myself in the past and never got burns.
 

gnasher729

macrumors P6
Nov 25, 2005
16,497
3,094
The lack of sympathy from the suit is this. It's hot coffee, I can understand it tipping on a tray, but the woman who sued, took the lid off, after putting it between her thighs, in a moving car.

How is the spill McDonald's fault? Yes, the coffee is hot, but like the post above you said, it's easier for the consumer to let hot coffee cool, than it is to heat it up.

We need to stop protecting people like the McDonald's woman, and this lawyer. There was nothing malicious intent-wise in either this case or the McDonald's one.
For some strange reasons, Americans always talk about the merits of taking personal responsibility, but they reject that principle when they talk about company management. Actually, the term "personal responsibility" is most often used to refuse companies taking responsibility. McDonalds clearly created a dangerous situation and profited from it. 700 cases are plenty of evidence that they knew they created a problem. It's like a car manufacturer building cars without seatbelts to save money. The damage is caused by creating a dangerous situation, _and_ someone making a mistake.

Now if a lawyer knew that McDonald's coffee was too hot, and intentionally threw coffee over himself to sue McDonald's, that should be rejected. That's what this situation is like. If Apple had an option hidden somewhere in the iPhone to buy HD versions even when the customer clicks on "buy SD", enabled by default in a place very hard to find, that would be comparable to the McDonald's case.

----------

Come on guy! You did something stupid -- take personal responsibility!

This reminds me of that lady that spilled the hot coffee she was unwisely clutching between her knees, then went after McD's for damages. I cannot believe juries pay people no matter how frivolous the suit.
I read this after the post that I'm adding this to - exactly what I said. You say "take personal responsibility" but what you mean is "management shouldn't have to take responsibility". What's wrong with McDonald's taking personal responsibility? And isn't it much much easier to make things safe if _one_ McDonald's executive decides that coffee should be sold at safe temperature, than millions of customers having to watch out?