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

G3/Mac OS X Settlement

I have an iMac A...

and I live in Canada. Will this settlement reach north?

If OS X 10.0 ran at all well on my iMac A as Panther does on my Quicksilver, I wouldn't complain. However, I don't think 10.0 even really qualified as an OS worth paying for, as a lot of things were not working in it (my modem drivers, video drivers, CD burning, et al.)

At least Apple is doing this. I can't see Microsoft refunding everyone for XP every time their OSes screw up, or don't fulfill.
 
Only US residents are covered in the settlement

You have to read the notice.

TO: ALL END USER PERSONS OR ENTITIES WITHIN THE UNITED STATES WHO BOTH (1) OWN OR OWNED CERTAIN APPLE G3 COMPUTER MODELS SOLD BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1997 AND SEPTEMBER 2000 ("COVERED PRODUCTS") AND (2) ALSO PURCHASED ANY VERSION OF MAC OS X FOR A COVERED PRODUCT ON OR BEFORE MAY 15, 2003:
Click to expand...

No Canucks apply.
 
Let me get this straight...

1) Apple says in writing that people's machines are supported.

2) People whose machines are supposedly supported buy OSX and finds out that their machine isn't supported, even though the box says it is.

3) They get upset and complain until Apple is forced to refund their money for a product that doesn't work as advertised.

4) Forum boneheads call them "whiners".


Seems to me that all Apple had to do was just list the machines that they knew couldn't take full advantage of OSX as "partially supported", but Apple took a gamble. They knew that this would cannibalize thousands of sales, so they let it slide, hoping that people would just "grin and bear it". Unfortunately, they underestimated the passion of their user base (silly them) and are now paying the price.

Apple's always been big with education. Looks like they got educated this time! :p
 
Originally posted by sethypoo
That, and if you have a 6 year old system, isn't it time to upgrade?

:) :rolleyes: :D
Click to expand...

Lombard was only 2 years old, and iBook SE only 1 year old, when Mac OS X came out. They are 5 years old now, but that's not what this settlement is about.
 
Re: Let me get this straight...

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
1) Apple says in writing that people's machines are supported.

2) People whose machines are supposedly supported buy OSX and finds out that their machine isn't supported, even though the box says it is.

3) They get upset and complain until Apple is forced to refund their money for a product that doesn't work as advertised.

4) Forum boneheads call them "whiners".


Seems to me that all Apple had to do was just list the machines that they knew couldn't take full advantage of OSX as "partially supported", but Apple took a gamble. They knew that this would cannibalize thousands of sales, so they let it slide, hoping that people would just "grin and bear it". Unfortunately, they underestimated the passion of their user base (silly them) and are now paying the price.

Apple's always been big with education. Looks like they got educated this time! :p
Click to expand...
hehe I agree.

DidnÕt a law office initiate the lawsuit? I remember reading about this a while back.
 
Re: Let me get this straight...

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
1) Apple says in writing that people's machines are supported.

2) People whose machines are supposedly supported buy OSX and finds out that their machine isn't supported, even though the box says it is.

3) They get upset and complain until Apple is forced to refund their money for a product that doesn't work as advertised.

4) Forum boneheads call them "whiners".


Seems to me that all Apple had to do was just list the machines that they knew couldn't take full advantage of OSX as "partially supported", but Apple took a gamble. They knew that this would cannibalize thousands of sales, so they let it slide, hoping that people would just "grin and bear it". Unfortunately, they underestimated the passion of their user base (silly them) and are now paying the price.

Apple's always been big with education. Looks like they got educated this time! :p
Click to expand...

Let's finish that list for you:

5) Apple never agains gives any indication as to how or if future versions of their OS will run on older hardware.

Once again. Congrats.
 
Re: Re: Let me get this straight...

Originally posted by Tuttle
Let's finish that list for you:

5) Apple never agains gives any indication as to how or if future versions of their OS will run on older hardware.

Once again. Congrats.
Click to expand...

Why, thank you. Businesses should be held accountable for what they promise to their customers; businesses should not be allowed to make written sales pitches and then fail to deliver. Imagine Dell coming out now and say that their current lineup of hardware will run Longhorn flawlessly in 2006. If this doesn't hold water when it does come out, they should be ready for a similar lawsuit.

Why should Apple be any different? One may even argue that Apple is even less ethical because they sell both software and hardware (so they have better control over what can and cannot run on their computers). When I made the decision to buy a Lombard back in September 1999, I gathered all the information I could like any informed consumer. One key piece of the information was Apple's unconditional promise that it will run Mac OS X. If Apple had not made such promise, no doubt I would have held off the purchase until Mac OS X came out. I want my $3600 laptop to be as valuable as possible. Don't you?
 
Re: Only US residents are covered in the settlement

Originally posted by banzaiman
You have to read the notice.



No Canucks apply.
Click to expand...

I know that right now that non-US citizens are not entitled to this settlement, however I feel that Apple will honor out of US claims (unless they want class action suits from every other country.)

They should pay $350K US once, or other countries will think about this.
 
Originally posted by the_dalex
They also have to send in the discs, or declare that the discs are lost or destroyed. I'm amazed people are so upset about this, unless OS X doesn't run on their computer in any usable fashion. I'd give up DVD playback for OS X features any day...
Click to expand...

Not true, you can also keep OS X and get the $25 from the Apple Store. I'm one of the people named on the class action, and I think it was worth it. Usually, I despise lawyers, but the one who worked this with us is also a Mac user and was also affected. For my part, I had my iBook SE less than a year (from new) when I was told that many video features would not be supported.

I believe the speedup in 10.1.5 and beyond for some of the "legacy" (I hear my iBook whimpering in the corner) Macs is due to the pressure we put on Apple. I'm a faithful Mac user, having bought a *lot* of Macs over the years. (I just took delivery of my G5 DP today.) This was one of the more memorable screwings, and one that I thought went a bit too far. Many of us went out and bought systems at a time when Apple needed us, and we did it based partly on the promise that we would be supported in future releases. "Crippled support" was kind of an insult to the faithful.

I'm hapy with the results. I did buy a G5, after all. :D
 
Still don't get it...

My point has not been that Apple should "not be held accountable," but that this lawsuit is not effective. Those of you who think "Now Apple will pay" just don't get the big picture. A financial loss for Apple is a financial loss for its customers. It is we who will ultimately pay for your gift certificates. You don't honestly think Uncle Steve is canceling the family vacation over this one, do you?

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I do think there are more contructive ways of Apple settling this without handing out money.
 
Originally posted by FelixDerKater

Maybe 1st generation TiBook owners could sue for similar reasons on grounds that the included 8MB Rage128 Mobility does not allow OS X to be used to its fullest since it is not compatible with QuartzExtreme...
Click to expand...

I think the difference is that it was made very, very clear what the min hardware requirements for QE were.

I think its a fair settlement. If you don't like Mac OS X you can have your money back and return it and if you keep it, you get a $25 rebate.

I was more than happy with Mac OS X on my beige G3 tower and that was on 10.0.x when I sold it, before all the 10.1 and 10.2 optimisations for G3's. As I recall I never had any issue with DVD playback.

Sanjay
 
Re: Uhh...What?

If Apple says that those machines are supported and in real life they're not, then Apple has done something wrong. Saying something like creates an obligation that has to be fulfilled.

Not that I'd go to court over that (and certainly not for a $25 discount).
 
Re: Still don't get it...

Originally posted by prismfinder
A financial loss for Apple is a financial loss for its customers. It is we who will ultimately pay for your gift certificates.
Click to expand...

And deceiving your customers is not bad for them? Apple made money on them (hardware & software sales). And last I heard Apple had a huge amount of cash lying around, so they could conceivably pay this and not raise prices on anything. If Apple really cares about its customers, that is.

On the other hand, Sony plans to sack 20000 people, not because they're losing money but because they want more profit. So who knows what Apple will do.
 
I think the settlement is fair =)

In 1998 I purchased a G3/300 Minitower for college completely decked out with A/V and everything. I was the first in line when OSX was released and installed it immediately. Not having features like DVD playback did not bother me, however in terms of speed, OSX was completely unusable. At the time I just chalked it off to OSX being a radically new version of the OS, it was bound to have problems. I also purchased 10.1 which was a huge improvement (useable), but the fact was I used OS 9 on this machine right untill I sold it in 2001. So in my opinion I paid 129 dollars for the first OSX which was supposed to work on my computer, but did not. Don't get me wrong folks, I love Apple, and OSX, having purchased 10.0, .1, .2, and .3, in fact I would gladly have taken a lesser compensation than a full refund as I buy Apple OS to support them. But am I the only one who feels insulted that the other option is a 25 dollar off a 99 dollar purchase. Those cupons were sent to random people who made regular purchases from the Apple store. Becuase of this I will be asking for a refund, it'll pay for the replacement battery in my Tibook.
 
Re: I think the settlement is fair =)

Originally posted by garfield2002
But am I the only one who feels insulted that the other option is a 25 dollar off a 99 dollar purchase.
Click to expand...
Of course it's an insult. Assuming everything in Apple's store is marked up 100% (common), they're still making $25 off of you which you may have spent somewhere else.

At this point, my eyes roll in a "whatever" mode. I've come to terms with OSX on my beige box at home (it does what it does) and I can only hope that Apple takes these lessons as learning experiences and sees their own faults in this instead of blaming it on the consumers who only expected what was advertised. Knowing Apple, I'm not counting on it. They're supreme marketers and marketing is the art of just dodging the lie with hyperbole, which means sometimes you cross over it when you believe your own marketing too much. Steve didn't create the SJRDF, the Apple faithful did by taking it as gospel.
 
G3 PowerBook

The G3 Wallstreet is listed as one of the computers yet Jaguar runs just fine on it.
Click to expand...

Same question here. I have a 1998 G3 PowerBook (Wallstreet) that runs great with 10.2.8. It's never been a finer machine -- except when the CD/DVD drive worked, but that's another story.
 
Originally posted by CraigMiami
lawsuit worthy? i think not. we live in a culture where it has become common place for people who if they're not getting what they want, when they want it, and how they want, or that they're getting screwed in any way, take it to court.
While i do agree that apple should have said those machines were *NOT* supported, i also think this lawsuit could be lumped with the overweight kids who sued McDonald's a few months ago because it caused them to be obese.
Lawsuits are not the way to solve all of our problems. Courts are not where all of our conflicts should be corrected.
Click to expand...

apples and oranges, buddy, apples and oranges. I believe the second suit you mentioned was actually thrown out, and it really has nothing to do with the class action against Apple.

I agree, this is an overly-litigious society, but this case doesn't show it. I love Apple, but it broke its promise. We can't let companies get away with making false claims in order to push their products. Apple didn't come out badly with this one. It could have done a lot worse. And the people were returned to their prior state, which is fair, since I doubt that a claim for loss of productivity or some such would have been justifiable.
 
So, what's the latest on this, guys? OS X ran like molasses on my Wallstreet, and I'd like to get a refund and go back to OS 9 or linux.
 
reflex said:
If Apple says that those machines are supported and in real life they're not, then Apple has done something wrong. Saying something like creates an obligation that has to be fulfilled.

Not that I'd go to court over that (and certainly not for a $25 discount).
Click to expand...

Turns out those machines are supported, but require more optimization to appear to have the same speed. http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html should help at least on the speed end. I got my Powerbook G3/233 with 512k backside (the lowest end supported machine) running 10.2 as fast as 9 was running on my machine. Apple does have also a note in their knowledgebase http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=60975 that machines without Firewire need not apply for DVD burner support, and at the bottom of

http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/

a footnote which says the same thing. The only two things I know of that aren't "supported" by Mac OS X on the "supported" machines are speed without optimization, and DVD Player playback on pre-Firewire machines. Most all the machines that needed support in other respects could get USB and Firewire cards to add support for peripherals that are Mac OS X compatible. Intriguingly one serial printer is supported by Mac OS X 10.2 when you download Gimp-print. Apple's Imagewriter!

So in essence, support exists, but requires extra effort if you have an older machine.
 
I ran 10.1 10.2 and 10.3 on my blue and white when it had the original G3/350 and they all ran fine, a bit slow mind you but fine. panther was amazing when I first installed it.

this is all silly. all apple did was say what systems osx will RUN on. they never made claims that it would run like the wind on one.

although my G4/500 upgrade runs x much better than the old G3/350 cpu. it runs a lot better than just a 150mhz boost.

people complain way too much.
 
I have to agree that there are too many silly a$$ed lawsuits tying up our systems. However, that isn't why I am writing.

There has been mention about how people with old machines should just upgrade. Not everybody has that kind of money. Me included. This is the reason I am going to run this Beige G3 into the ground. I have a very finite amount of money, none of which is earmarked for a new computer purchase.

Macs are expensive, plain and simple. You get high quality but you pay for it. Why do you think that this lawsuit even came about? Because people hold on to their Macs until they can't go on any longer. Should people realize that a 6 year old computer might not work with all new software? Absolutely. Should people have to shell out 2000.00 every 2-3 years to assure themselves that they can run the latest software. I don't believe so.

Think of it this way. People would get pissed if they took their 97 Civic into the Honda dealership to be told it is no longer supported and they should upgrade.
 
blue&whiteman said:
I ran 10.1 10.2 and 10.3 on my blue and white when it had the original G3/350 and they all ran fine, a bit slow mind you but fine. panther was amazing when I first installed it.

this is all silly. all apple did was say what systems osx will RUN on. they never made claims that it would run like the wind on one.

although my G4/500 upgrade runs x much better than the old G3/350 cpu. it runs a lot better than just a 150mhz boost.

people complain way too much.
Click to expand...

The problem with running OS X on the old G3s is not the processor, but the RAM. Apple shipped computers (G3 iMacs for instance) that had 64 or 128 MB of RAM, claiming that they would run OS X. For those of us that ordered our machines with more than the stock RAM, it isn't a problem, but for those that ordered the machines with no upgrades, OS X is not useable (OK maybe it will boot, but beyond that you're just SOL). The issue at hand is not that these machines should run OS X, but rather that Apple shouldn't have promised that they could.
 
leftbanke7 said:
I have to agree that there are too many silly a$$ed lawsuits tying up our systems. However, that isn't why I am writing.

There has been mention about how people with old machines should just upgrade. Not everybody has that kind of money. Me included. This is the reason I am going to run this Beige G3 into the ground. I have a very finite amount of money, none of which is earmarked for a new computer purchase.

Macs are expensive, plain and simple. You get high quality but you pay for it. Why do you think that this lawsuit even came about? Because people hold on to their Macs until they can't go on any longer. Should people realize that a 6 year old computer might not work with all new software? Absolutely. Should people have to shell out 2000.00 every 2-3 years to assure themselves that they can run the latest software. I don't believe so.

Think of it this way. People would get pissed if they took their 97 Civic into the Honda dealership to be told it is no longer supported and they should upgrade.
Click to expand...

An eMac is $800 new. Even cheaper ones are available used that are able to boot into Mac OS 9. So no, you don't even have to shell out half the amount you specified.

http://www.macmaps.com/usedrefurbished.html
 
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