Other Woman Sues Apple For ‘Hiding’ Notch In iPhone Xs And Xs Max Advertisements

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by STOCK411, Dec 17, 2018.

  1. STOCK411, Dec 17, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 17, 2018

    STOCK411 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2007
    #1
    https://fossbytes.com/woman-sues-apple-for-hiding-notch-in-iphone-xs-xs-max-ad/

    What does everybody think of this?
     
  2. C DM, Dec 17, 2018
    Last edited: Dec 17, 2018

    C DM macrumors Sandy Bridge

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #2
    Advertising is advertising.

    There was somewhat of a rational point there to it all in relation to advertising -- although not in the sense that something illegal has been happening -- until the whole nonsense about trying to splice in that another device is better or superior and how some pixels shouldn't be counted all that. Way to undermine something that at least had some rationale to it with some subjective frivolousness.
     
  3. Newtons Apple macrumors Core

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #3
    She will not have a leg to stand on. Clearly shown on Apple's site and I have seen ads with the notch clearly visible.
     
  4. eyoungren macrumors Core

    eyoungren

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2011
    Location:
    ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
    #4
    It's the same stuff as when Apple was trying to hide the antenna lines and camera bump for the 6/6s. Nobody sued for that.

    But even more so, the notch has been there since the X. Unless she's been living in Iran or North Korea for the last year she can't claim ignorance.

    I expect her case to be thrown out with prejudice.
     
  5. ftaok macrumors 603

    ftaok

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2002
    Location:
    East Coast
    #5
    I interested to know what she thinks the damages are. In any lawsuit, you have to show damages, otherwise it should be thrown out.

    Had Apple refused to accept a full return because she didn't like the notch, then she'd have a point. But somehow, I'm guessing that this isn't the case here.
     
  6. brofkand macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    #6
    Not sure how she can prove any damages. I mean she can just return the phone if she doesn't like it, she's not out anything. A minute or two of research before spending a grand on a phone would have saved her a lot of hassle. She's likely expecting a quick settlement. Some people have more time than they have common sense.
     
  7. Newtons Apple macrumors Core

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #7
    After reading some of the negative posts about the notch, you would think there were damages:rolleyes:
     
  8. JPack macrumors 601

    JPack

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    #8
    Notch, hard to win. It's pretty obvious when you unbox and use the device.

    Pixel count, much easier to win. It's not something consumers would easily notice within the 14 day return period. But it was clear from day one the iPhone X has a lower true pixel count and was less sharp compared to iPhone 8 Plus. I'm surprised Apple didn't have a disclaimer about the subpixels on their marketing material.
     
  9. C DM macrumors Sandy Bridge

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2011
    #9
    Seems like when it comes to pixel count that's not quite the reasoning that was being used in the accusation.
     
  10. jazz1 macrumors 68000

    jazz1

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Mid-West USA
    #10
    Maybe the iPhone would overheat without the notch :eek:;)


    [​IMG]
     
  11. JPack macrumors 601

    JPack

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    #11
    It is. If you read the statement of claim, it goes into great detail about subpixels, Pentile, RGB stripe, etc.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/395721345/Apple-Lawsuit

    "The iPhone X Product is advertised as having 2436×1125 pixels, but in fact does not use true pixels with red, green, and blue subpixels in each pixel. Instead, the Product has only false screen pixels, with just two subpixels per false pixel (2436×1125×2 = 5,481,000 subpixels), and it does not actually have any subpixels at all in the notch at the top of the screen or in the display-area corners. In contrast, the iPhone 8 Plus has a higher quality screen than the Product, with more subpixels than the Product (1920×1080 pixels×3 subpixels per pixel = 6,220,800 subpixels). In contrast to the Product, the iPhone 8 Plus does not have a notch at the top of the screen or rounded corners of the display area."
     
  12. Relentless Power macrumors Penryn

    Relentless Power

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2016
    #12
    I can’t say there would being any relation to a notch with a GT 350, it certainly would never look like that.
     
  13. dwfaust macrumors 603

    dwfaust

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    #13
  14. AppleHaterLover macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2018
    #14
    Apple has a very generous refund policy. Why couldn’t she just return it?

    This is part of what’s wrong with the US. People like this, crying wolf for no reason at all, make the lawsuits that should actually exist be dismissed.

    I honestly cannot decide what’s worse - if it’s this lawsuit or the other one where they were trying to blame Apple for some dude FACETIMING WHILE DRIVING.

    What’s next? I’ll sue BMW because some dude decided it was OK to do 150mph on the freeway and crashed into me? I’ll sue Whirlpool because someone threw a refrigerator at me on the sidewalk from the 10th floor and clearly they should have imagined someone would do that and prevented it?

    Damn.
     
  15. Jordan921 macrumors 601

    Jordan921

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #15
    Don’t think she has a chance at all of winning this.
     
  16. MattMJB0188 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    #16
    Or why can't Apple just make a good looking phone again, like they use to?
     
  17. appleoverload macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2018
    #17

    did you hear about the lawsuit regarding dimensional lumber like a 2X4" actually being 1.5X3.5"

    that one didn't get very far though at least...
     
  18. brofkand macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2006
    #18
    "I don't like the way the phone looks" isn't a winning argument in a lawsuit.
     
  19. ActionableMango macrumors G3

    ActionableMango

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    #19
    Oh man that confused me so much when I first started doing home improvement/maintenance projects.
     
  20. that be me macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2013
    #20
    Playing devil’s advocate. If all she saw was the first ad, and made her choice based on that ad, you can’t see the notch and she’d be right. She could have placed a pre-order with that assumption. Apple would be at fault in that case.

    I think the case is still frivolous, but I can see her side.
     
  21. Jordan921 macrumors 601

    Jordan921

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #21
    Phone looks good to me. Works for me also.
     
  22. Ebok Suspended

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2018
    #22
    Why is it always ppl from Cali doing this crap? lol
     
  23. TheRealAlex macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    #23
  24. DJ_Smith macrumors regular

    DJ_Smith

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2018
    #24
    C’mon chicks. Every phone has notch except samsung these days. The woman just woke up from dinosaur age.
     
  25. Böhme417 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #25
    While I do have a seething hatred for all the frivolous lawsuits these days and all of these knee-jerk-litigious people, I can see her point. At least attention is being brought to the possibly deceptive advertising. I absolutely believe it was in an effort to minimize the visual impact of the notch and make the device more appealing in marketing. I don't think it was truly deceptive, as anyone spending an additional five seconds researching the phone would see it. If anything, Apple does deserve a slap on the wrist. Monetary damages? No.

    As for the pixel count (and even screen size), I completely agree with that.There should be a disclaimer about the reduced pixel count and something about not being a full 5.8/6.1/6.5" viewable area.
     

Share This Page

59 December 17, 2018