No, that's what an Apple employee told me once when I was there a while ago.
But I did find this link from a couple of years ago, where it says that the Fifth Avenue store grosses $35,000 per square foot. I was in that store a few weeks ago to pick something up, and there are always plenty of tourists and foreigners always picking up Apple devices on their visit to the US.
Fifth Avenue Apple store said to gross $35,000 per square foot. Can it be true?
I wonder if they'll also sue Samsung, HTC, and all the other phone manufacturers who come out with a new model every month.
No. They don't have enough cash. Apple in hoarding its cash makes it a HUGE target for lawsuits of all kind. The more they hold the bigger the target on their back. They need to payout 80B to shareholders and lower the target surface area
Just curious what exactly you can do with the 4th gen that you can't do on the 3rd? I'm not aware of anything.
Well, it is more powerful and there are certain apps that require power.
I can easily max out the power of my iPad 3 and bring it to it's knees when using certain pro apps. I wouldn't mind having double or quadruple the power that I currently have, because I would certainly make good use of it.
With "Moore's Law" planned obsolescence is a feature, not a bug! As another example, one could say Intel's whole business plan has ALWAYS been roadmap of planned obsolescence! Beyond that, well, planned obsolescence describes computing as an industry in general.
Snarkyness aside, the reconciliation of a rapidly changing world with the need to protect consumers for rational reasons will become a sticky bit of business more and more in the near future.
Well, it is more powerful and there are certain apps that require power.
I can easily max out the power of my iPad 3 and bring it to it's knees when using certain pro apps. I wouldn't mind having double or quadruple the power that I currently have, because I would certainly make good use of it.
Well then I guess they should be suing lots of companies. Last time I checked you can't upgrade the internals of any tablet device.
Computer mfg have been pushing out speed bump models every 6 to 12 months all of the time. they might as well sue everyone that makes computers.
Does the iPad 3 not support the latest OS and applications? NO. Then it's not obsolete. All they did was to make some changes to the product. What is the definition of the word Obsolete? a: no longer in use or no longer useful
Is the iPad 3 no longer useful? NO. They are quite useful. The iPad 2 still exists and that's useful. They just have two models to choose from for the large screen display.
Apple had actually given customers 30 days return privileges for iPad 3's purchased within 30 days. How do I know? I was one of those that bought an iPad 3 and returned it for an iPad 4. they didn't question it. Hassle free exchange through their phone sales team.
I guess these countries have nothing better to do than to sue rich companies for product updates because they are looking for a hand out because the politicians don't know how to manage their own affairs. Did the Country of Brazil buy any iPad 3's? Probably not.
Does the iPad 3 not support the latest OS and applications? NO. Then it's not obsolete. All they did was to make some changes to the product. What is the definition of the word Obsolete? a: no longer in use or no longer useful
Is the iPad 3 no longer useful? NO. They are quite useful. The iPad 2 still exists and that's useful. They just have two models to choose from for the large screen display.
To be fair, there are some applications that require the iPad 4, but your point is, of course, very valid. There will always be software that only runs on the newest machine; this is true for any technology. The iPad 3 remains no worse for wear.
[" url="/t/156099/brazilian-lawsuit-accuses-apple-of-planned-obsolescence-with-fourth-gen-ipad#post_2281788"]No, that's what an Apple employee told me once when I was there a while ago.
But I did find this link from a couple of years ago, where it says that the Fifth Avenue store grosses $35,000 per square foot. I was in that store a few weeks ago to pick something up, and there are always plenty of tourists and foreigners always picking up Apple devices on their visit to the US.
<h1 style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:24px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;border-top-width:0px;border-right-width:0px;border-bottom-width:0px;border-left-width:0px;font-size:36px;line-height:40px;font:normal normal normal 36px/normal Georgia, Cambria, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">Fifth Avenue Apple store said to gross $35,000 per square foot. Can it be true?</h1>
Just like many other idiots, they think obsolete means no longer the newest technology. Obsolete really means no longer of general use. When you understand that, you realize that even the 1st gen iPad isn't obsolete yet.
And while we're on the subject of Brazil, I also think that it was a mistake to be building any factories there, and it would also be a mistake to be building any factories in Turkey.
I would counter that the reverse is true. Apple should have factories in as many countries as possible. Diversifying countries means if one country goes stupid with their rules it would be more readily possible to nix that production area. And with production in various countries it gives leverage to argue exemption to various import laws if the product selling in the country is being built in said country.
Just like many other idiots, they think obsolete means no longer the newest technology. Obsolete really means no longer of general use. When you understand that, you realize that even the 1st gen iPad isn't obsolete yet.
It doesn't matter. Even if the iPad 3 were obsolete, it's irrelevant. Apple's competing with other companies and has to continually improve their products. They have the right to release new products with any new features they want at any time.
Let's say that the allegations were true. Pretend that the A6x and Lightning connector were available at the time the iPad 3 was released. So? Which law requires a company to always include it's latest technology in any product they sell? When a company has a strong lead over the competition, it's not at all uncommon to hold some new features or products in reserve for when the competition catches up to where you are today.
There are more recent articles. I remember reading how Apple was more profitable per sq ft than Tiffany's.
Yeah, that's true. I remember reading the same thing about Tiffany's.
Also, I believe that the Fifth Ave store is the only Apple store to be open 24-7-365. With the money that they're raking in, I wouldn't dare close either!
Even as a Brazilian I find it extremely difficult to agree with such a lawsuit - it is more than clear that Apple has provided sufficient information for potential customers in Brazil to make their purchasing decisions. However, most of the usually US-centric comments in this thread ignore that different countries follow different consumer protection principles, particularly those with a clear European Continental Law background like Brazil. Whereas in the US one normally follows the principle of contractual freedom and little else, in many other countries you can have comprehensive statutes which do, indeed, play an important role against possible abuses by vendors and service providers.
In any case, the only theoretical possibility that a judge might consider refers to misleading publicity, if it is proven beyond doubt that Apple deliberately fooled the public in buying an outdated device (see excerpt of article 37 below):
"§ 1° É enganosa qualquer modalidade de informação ou comunicação de caráter publicitário, inteira ou parcialmente falsa, ou, por qualquer outro modo, mesmo por omissão, capaz de induzir em erro o consumidor a respeito da natureza, características, qualidade, quantidade, propriedades, origem, preço e quaisquer outros dados sobre produtos e serviços."
Having said the above, I still consider this as just another easy case for Apple - they won't have to spend much time on it.
p.s.1: For the "enlightened" citizens of the US of A here, please understand one thing: your country is, BY FAR, the most prodigal in frivolous lawsuits, particularly class-action suits like the one above...if in doubt, go check the pathetically-funny Stella Awards.
p.s.2: Brazil is not the new China, and never will become one. We are western people with western values and have ZERO similarity with low-cost sweatshops in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Central America. So go read more about the country instead of spouting nonsense.
p.s.3: Apple devices are expensive in Brazil because of HIGH import taxes aimed at fostering local manufacturing (exactly what YOU are asking for now in your own country - LOCAL plants), numerous indirect taxes and the excessive willingness to pay more of many middle- and higher-class Brazilians. This is not Burundi, ya know...
This has to be one of stupidest lawsuit Apple has to deal with.
They clearly misinterpret the term 'planned obsolescence' term. It means when it stops working or becomes severely limited in usefulness after a certain period of time. There is difference between that and envy. Apple owes you nothing in terms of you having the latest device when you buy it apart from the warranty.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley
Got a link for that?
No, that's what an Apple employee told me once when I was there a while ago.
But I did find this link from a couple of years ago, where it says that the Fifth Avenue store grosses $35,000 per square foot. I was in that store a few weeks ago to pick something up, and there are always plenty of tourists and foreigners always picking up Apple devices on their visit to the US.
Fifth Avenue Apple store said to gross $35,000 per square foot. Can it be true?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/08/24/apples-reported-35-000-per-square-foot-gross-on-fifth-ave-can/
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53
I wonder if they'll also sue Samsung, HTC, and all the other phone manufacturers who come out with a new model every month.
No. They don't have enough cash. Apple in hoarding its cash makes it a HUGE target for lawsuits of all kind. The more they hold the bigger the target on their back. They need to payout 80B to shareholders and lower the target surface area
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Just curious what exactly you can do with the 4th gen that you can't do on the 3rd? I'm not aware of anything.
Well, it is more powerful and there are certain apps that require power.
I can easily max out the power of my iPad 3 and bring it to it's knees when using certain pro apps. I wouldn't mind having double or quadruple the power that I currently have, because I would certainly make good use of it.
Snarkyness aside, the reconciliation of a rapidly changing world with the need to protect consumers for rational reasons will become a sticky bit of business more and more in the near future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Well, it is more powerful and there are certain apps that require power.
I can easily max out the power of my iPad 3 and bring it to it's knees when using certain pro apps. I wouldn't mind having double or quadruple the power that I currently have, because I would certainly make good use of it.
Well then I guess they should be suing lots of companies. Last time I checked you can't upgrade the internals of any tablet device.
Computer mfg have been pushing out speed bump models every 6 to 12 months all of the time. they might as well sue everyone that makes computers.
Does the iPad 3 not support the latest OS and applications? NO. Then it's not obsolete. All they did was to make some changes to the product. What is the definition of the word Obsolete? a: no longer in use or no longer useful
Is the iPad 3 no longer useful? NO. They are quite useful. The iPad 2 still exists and that's useful. They just have two models to choose from for the large screen display.
Apple had actually given customers 30 days return privileges for iPad 3's purchased within 30 days. How do I know? I was one of those that bought an iPad 3 and returned it for an iPad 4. they didn't question it. Hassle free exchange through their phone sales team.
I guess these countries have nothing better to do than to sue rich companies for product updates because they are looking for a hand out because the politicians don't know how to manage their own affairs. Did the Country of Brazil buy any iPad 3's? Probably not.
This is a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit.
Originally Posted by drblank
Does the iPad 3 not support the latest OS and applications? NO. Then it's not obsolete. All they did was to make some changes to the product. What is the definition of the word Obsolete? a: no longer in use or no longer useful
Is the iPad 3 no longer useful? NO. They are quite useful. The iPad 2 still exists and that's useful. They just have two models to choose from for the large screen display.
To be fair, there are some applications that require the iPad 4, but your point is, of course, very valid. There will always be software that only runs on the newest machine; this is true for any technology. The iPad 3 remains no worse for wear.
There are more recent articles. I remember reading how Apple was more profitable per sq ft than Tiffany's.
Just like many other idiots, they think obsolete means no longer the newest technology. Obsolete really means no longer of general use. When you understand that, you realize that even the 1st gen iPad isn't obsolete yet.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
And while we're on the subject of Brazil, I also think that it was a mistake to be building any factories there, and it would also be a mistake to be building any factories in Turkey.
I would counter that the reverse is true. Apple should have factories in as many countries as possible. Diversifying countries means if one country goes stupid with their rules it would be more readily possible to nix that production area. And with production in various countries it gives leverage to argue exemption to various import laws if the product selling in the country is being built in said country.
The iPad 3 was originally released on March 16, 20012.
The iPad 4 was originally released on November 2, 20012.
By my calculations, that's a little more than 7 months, not 6 months.
It doesn't matter. Even if the iPad 3 were obsolete, it's irrelevant. Apple's competing with other companies and has to continually improve their products. They have the right to release new products with any new features they want at any time.
Let's say that the allegations were true. Pretend that the A6x and Lightning connector were available at the time the iPad 3 was released. So? Which law requires a company to always include it's latest technology in any product they sell? When a company has a strong lead over the competition, it's not at all uncommon to hold some new features or products in reserve for when the competition catches up to where you are today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Well then I guess they should be suing lots of companies. Last time I checked you can't upgrade the internals of any tablet device.
These people suing aren't the brightest people in the world, so let them sue whoever they want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
There are more recent articles. I remember reading how Apple was more profitable per sq ft than Tiffany's.
Yeah, that's true. I remember reading the same thing about Tiffany's.
Also, I believe that the Fifth Ave store is the only Apple store to be open 24-7-365. With the money that they're raking in, I wouldn't dare close either!
Even as a Brazilian I find it extremely difficult to agree with such a lawsuit - it is more than clear that Apple has provided sufficient information for potential customers in Brazil to make their purchasing decisions. However, most of the usually US-centric comments in this thread ignore that different countries follow different consumer protection principles, particularly those with a clear European Continental Law background like Brazil. Whereas in the US one normally follows the principle of contractual freedom and little else, in many other countries you can have comprehensive statutes which do, indeed, play an important role against possible abuses by vendors and service providers.
In any case, the only theoretical possibility that a judge might consider refers to misleading publicity, if it is proven beyond doubt that Apple deliberately fooled the public in buying an outdated device (see excerpt of article 37 below):
"§ 1° É enganosa qualquer modalidade de informação ou comunicação de caráter publicitário, inteira ou parcialmente falsa, ou, por qualquer outro modo, mesmo por omissão, capaz de induzir em erro o consumidor a respeito da natureza, características, qualidade, quantidade, propriedades, origem, preço e quaisquer outros dados sobre produtos e serviços."
Having said the above, I still consider this as just another easy case for Apple - they won't have to spend much time on it.
p.s.1: For the "enlightened" citizens of the US of A here, please understand one thing: your country is, BY FAR, the most prodigal in frivolous lawsuits, particularly class-action suits like the one above...if in doubt, go check the pathetically-funny Stella Awards.
p.s.2: Brazil is not the new China, and never will become one. We are western people with western values and have ZERO similarity with low-cost sweatshops in Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Central America. So go read more about the country instead of spouting nonsense.
p.s.3: Apple devices are expensive in Brazil because of HIGH import taxes aimed at fostering local manufacturing (exactly what YOU are asking for now in your own country - LOCAL plants), numerous indirect taxes and the excessive willingness to pay more of many middle- and higher-class Brazilians. This is not Burundi, ya know...
They clearly misinterpret the term 'planned obsolescence' term. It means when it stops working or becomes severely limited in usefulness after a certain period of time. There is difference between that and envy. Apple owes you nothing in terms of you having the latest device when you buy it apart from the warranty.
This is plain stupid.
The lawyers must love all these DUMB legal attacks on Apple.