Apple faces second class-action lawsuit over Siri

124»

Comments

  • sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post


    This lawsuit is ridiculous. I don't understand why this guy didn't just return the phone and move on. He had 30 days to return the phone. It definitely couldn't have taken longer then 30 days for him to figure out Siri did not live up to his expectations. He's seeking "relief and damages". Other then the cost of the phone, what damage could this have actually caused him?



    To be fair, you cant defend a false advertising claim by saying "Why didn't you just return it?"



    If it was that simple Listerene would still be allowed to say "as good as flossing" and if people didn't think so they could just return it.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    Maybe a little disclaimer wouldn't hurt?



    "Siri does not work as well as shown in this ad unless you are using it under the EXACT same conditions as the ad and have a network connection"



    Honestly, this whole situation is stupid. What product actually does what it advertises anyway? Go roll around in mud and chocolate and see if tide brings your white t-shirt like new. NOPE.



    Or go play your Kinect for 360 and see if the onscreen character reacts as fast as in the ad. NOPE.



    Go put your dishes in the dishwasher with thick greasy clumps of food stuck to it and see if cascade makes them come out sparkly clean. NOPE



    The way I see it, the only honest ads are drug ads when they list every single thing that can go wrong. Other than that, marketing is all lies that are geared to stupid people that cant tell reality from BS.



    I'd just say "results may vary" but is that really necessary? Do customers see two people talking on a phone and then sue because their call got dropped or their conversation wasn't as enjoyable as the two people talking on TV?



    It's a service that needs to understand your voice. Even without knowing the specifics of the technology people that mumble, stutter, slur, talk too fast, have a unique accent, etc. should be aware that if other people can have trouble understanding them than a computerized service will also have trouble.



    Apple needs Vinny Gambini to represent them in all Siri cases. The way he represented those two yutes should be helpful in this case. (See what I did there? )
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 15,262member
    I explained why IMO this even became an issue back in post 28. Apple did this to themselves by putting the sole initial emphasis on Siri as the reason to buy an iPhone 4S. They can't scream, "look at me and Siri" dozens of times a day on every major network, not mentioning any other compelling feature, and then when buyers' find it's still a work in progress say "don't look at me, it's the user's problem". That's begging for some grumbling.



    I'm sure Apple weighed the potential complaints and possible payouts against the number of 4S's that would sell based on their Siri marketing and rightly assumed it was worth it. They're a really smart company and an even smarter promoter.
  • jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,048member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    Just bring the damn phone back for a refund. God.



    JUst drag that old folding RAZR out from under the stove.
  • boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    To be fair, you cant defend a false advertising claim by saying "Why didn't you just return it?"



    If it was that simple Listerene would still be allowed to say "as good as flossing" and if people didn't think so they could just return it.



    I understand your point, but what is Apple advertising that's false? I've had no issues making appointments or finding restaurants using Siri. Yes, it doesn't always give you the results you are looking for but Siri is still capable of doing as advertised.



    Look at another example. You see all those Oxy Clean commercials. Should I go out and file a class action lawsuit against Oxy Clean because their product didn't take a spot out of my shirt? Should I file a lawsuit against GM because I'm not getting the gas mileage a gallon they say on the commercial or window sticker on the car?



    Without using the beta defense, Siri in my opinion works as advertised. Maybe it doesn't always work as smoothly as it is shown in the commercial, but that doesn't warrant a class action lawsuit. Products are always exaggerated in commercials to some extent.
  • sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post


    I understand your point, but what is Apple advertising that's false? I've had no issues making appointments or finding restaurants using Siri. Yes, it doesn't always give you the results you are looking for but Siri is still capable of doing as advertised.



    Look at another example. You see all those Oxy Clean commercials. Should I go out and file a class action lawsuit against Oxy Clean because their product didn't take a spot out of my shirt? Should I file a lawsuit against GM because I'm not getting the gas mileage a gallon they say on the commercial or window sticker on the car?



    Without using the beta defense, Siri in my opinion works as advertised. Maybe it doesn't always work as smoothly as it is shown in the commercial, but that doesn't warrant a class action lawsuit. Products are always exaggerated in commercials to some extent.



    YOU STOLE MY ARGUMENT ABOUT TIDE AND INSERTED OXY CLEAN, LOL!!!



    But I agree with you. The fact is ads, well most ads, are not regulated. Drug ads i believe are. And now we are seeing congress regulate cosmetic ads which digitally retouch models to make it appear the products can do what in reality they cant.



    Maybe the rest of the marketing industry needs regulation as well cause the vast majority of people see ads and believe them. And that goes for apple, tide, GM, Samsung, Verizon, Nike (I BOUGHT THOSE JORDANS AND STILL CANT DUNK), ETC.



    Ads to me are there to give a general idea of a product, not necessarily portray what the product WILL do but what under certain conditions it SHOULD BE ABLE to do. And any grey area after that, such as companies that totally advertise false claims (like listerene did), then that's for the courts.
  • jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,048member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by galore2112 View Post


    You Apple apologists are strange.



    I have quite a few Apple products (the first Intel iMac, a 27" iMac, have all iPhones (except 4s), the new iPad) so don't confuse me for some Android fanboy on Google's payroll whose part time job is to seed anti-Apple sentiment.



    That said, I don't get Apple's advertising strategy lately. I always found Apple's main attraction to be their very high quality and design. What's with this ridiculous advertising nowadays where Siri is advertised as some Star-trek like computer assistant (*but it's only beta so please don't expect anything about toy level) and the iPad is ultra fast 4G LTE (*but you have to travel to the USA for LTE).



    I think that's just beneath THE leading consumer tech company of the world.



    Consumer goods are advertised in superficial ways. The most effective, IMHO, of the iPod ads were the simply dancing silhouettes where the only signal it was an iPod commercial were the white earphone wires and the closing freeze-frame.. Conveying the world as two dimensional and monotonic in nature? No. Giving an arresting and memorable image of the product? Yes. Much like "asking", in a rhetorical fashion, for Siri to remind the woman to sometime in the future redo that wonderful cross country road trip. That image of relaxation and satisfaction as the lasting image association.
  • onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    I find it humorous and ironic that she thinks that a gender is a species.



    Oh, and to clarify, she's saying it this way because you're in the UK and Siri is a man there, right



    I gather you are not married?



    It is not uncommon (here) for wives to (want to) dissociate themselves from their husbands and will often use the phrase, "it's the species, idiot" while pointing out to their other's fault pas.



    And no, we live in North America. Where women are smarter than men-so I am told.



    Men and women are different species.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,856member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Onhka View Post


    It is not uncommon (here) for wives to (want to) dissociate themselves from their husbands and will often use the phrase, "it's the species, idiot" while pointing out to their other's fault pas.



    Interesting; where's 'here', then? I've never even heard of that. You don't have to be specific, obviously.
  • boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


    YOU STOLE MY ARGUMENT ABOUT TIDE AND INSERTED OXY CLEAN, LOL!!!



    But I agree with you. The fact is ads, well most ads, are not regulated. Drug ads i believe are. And now we are seeing congress regulate cosmetic ads which digitally retouch models to make it appear the products can do what in reality they cant.



    Maybe the rest of the marketing industry needs regulation as well cause the vast majority of people see ads and believe them. And that goes for apple, tide, GM, Samsung, Verizon, Nike (I BOUGHT THOSE JORDANS AND STILL CANT DUNK), ETC.



    Ads to me are there to give a general idea of a product, not necessarily portray what the product WILL do but what under certain conditions it SHOULD BE ABLE to do. And any grey area after that, such as companies that totally advertise false claims (like listerene did), then that's for the courts.



    I just added to your argument with Oxi Clean..lol.



    Speaking of cosmetic ads, I always find it funny seeing those in magazines. They should really be advertisements for the features of Photoshop. The women in those ads look like figures in a wax museum.



    You do see disclaimers on ads on tv, but they only last a few seconds and are really hard to read. I see ads the same way as you. When it comes to electronics, the best thing to do is go see the product in a store and test it out before you buy it.
  • onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    Interesting; where's 'here', then? I've never even heard of that. You don't have to be specific, obviously.



    As I stated in the next paragraph, i.e., North America.
  • graxspoograxspoo Posts: 162member
    First of all the ads are doctored. They say as much in the fine print. Secondly, who promotes a flag-ship product based on a feature that is 'beta?' That is just asking for trouble. It sends a mixed message "It's great! (it's still not quite working)." They don't say Siri is in beta in the ads.

    While, yes, people who are unhappy with Siri could maybe just return the phone, I'm glad that Apple is going to have its feet held to the fire a little on this. Companies shouldn't use exaggerated features to sell products without having some push-back from their customers. Apple is usually better than this.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,856member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Onhka View Post


    As I stated in the next paragraph, i.e., North America.



    What I'm saying is that I've not heard that ever from any media source or other means of communication, and I've lived in North America for all but four months of my life.
  • zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 1,961member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


    My Mom and Pop are not "Tallest Skill"-savvy. They basically think beta is like "betacam" or a nice greek letter. When they see huge advertisement saying "hey, Siri is super cool, it is magical, and it's only on the iPhone 4S", they don't understand it as "Hey, Siri is a test product that may or may not work". Actually, nobody would buy it if it was advertised as such.



    Disclaimer: I skipped on the 4S, waiting for next generation (the "new iPhone" I guess? or maybe iPhone "Galaxy", or iPhone 777, who the hell knows )



    My point: APPLE DOES MASS CONSUMER PRODUCTS. Their ads are not supposed be understandable only by geeks like you and I, but also by completely useless (IT-wise) people like my beloved mommy, my dear pop, my sisters who haven't yet found how to operate Facetime (yeah... I know... can't help it), my artist friends who haven't ever updated their macs because the machine talks to them in windows they don't understand, so they click "cancel"... This is, really,the real world.



    So, "you idiots" is Apple's consumers, for 90% of their sales... I hope my point is clear?



    Fine. So those people don't understand the ads. They get the product home and it doesn't work to expectations. No problem...return the phone and get your money back. If Apple refused to take it back, then I would support the lawsuit. But they do take it back. So IMO, these types of absurd lawsuits should be thrown out of court and the court should decide if the case was abusive. If it's found to be abusive, the person suing should have to pay costs.



    When a restaurant advertises that they make "the best pizza" and I go there and the pizza sucks, there's a very simple solution: I don't go back. Done. I don't sue them.



    What's amazing to me is that someone close to me had a mild heart attack, went into the hospital where they put a mainline in. When they did that, they accidentally punctured the lung. He couldn't recover from that and died a month later. Three different lawyers turned down the case. But people can sue Apple because they don't think Siri works to expectations? What a great legal system we have.
  • isheldonisheldon Posts: 570member
    False advertising is false advertising- either it works or it doesn't.

    Not that difficult to comprehend actually.
  • radster360radster360 Posts: 509member
    David Jones: Siri, Who is a jack ass?

    Siri: You are



    David Jones: Siri, Who is the biggest moron?

    Siri: I guess you don't understand English - You are.
  • relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Your honour I would like to bring plaintiff 1'427 to the podium. Sir for the court can you tell us what happened on the day of January 3rd 2012. Well you honour it's like this my wifes name is Mindi and my mistresses name is Mandi. I was is the car with my wifes mother after picking her up from the airport when she asked to use my phone to call her daughter ..........
  • splash-reversesplash-reverse Posts: 648member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post


    My Mom and Pop ... (yeah... I know... can't help it), my artist friends who haven't ever updated their macs because the machine talks to them in windows they don't understand, so they click "cancel"... This is, really,the real world.



    So, "you idiots" is Apple's consumers, for 90% of their sales... I hope my point is clear?



    Barely Apple's problems if you said their customers are idiots. Everybody has their chance to get educated and learn something no matter the circumstances. Either you ask or you read or you listen. These so call idiots you are calling is just f lazy though not dumb but what remain of their tiny brain is used for this kind of 'scams'. Should be shot dead with one bullet between the eye.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post


    False advertising is false advertising- either it works or it doesn't.

    Not that difficult to comprehend actually.



    Apparently it is - since you've failed to comprehend it.



    It's a useful technology for many people. There is a tiny number who find that it doesn't work for them because of the clarity of their speech - and they're free to return it for a refund.



    Expecting a new technology to work flawlessly under every possible scenario is inane. All Apple has to show is that the technology works most of the time and that it is not being intentionally misrepresented.



    By your logic, I saw an ad for a SUV that is claimed to have AWD to help get through deep snow. Does that mean I can sue the manufacturer if I get stuck?



    There are plenty of other examples. "Does the technology work?" does not demand perfection.
  • hzchzc Posts: 60member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    "Your honor, it's a beta."



    Even if it weren't beta, were people realistically expecting to go from those voice recognition duds to a complete flawless Jeeves? Get a grip people; you probably went "Pardon me" or "What did you say?" just yesterday and nobody is suing you for that! The only thing unbelievable about all of this is total lack of common sense. I mean, does a Motorola DROID really make you feel oh so masculine? And if you need a DROID to make you feel that way... well, let's just leave it at that.
Sign In or Register to comment.