I have nothing against someone making a transaction for sexual favors. I think it should be completely legal, but if that's your interest then you should simply not get married. I think some people get married to legitimize them as human beings so they can go off to be absolutely assholes in the rest of their life.
I don't quite understand why the article had to be written with such smugness, especially because I doubt that the author has any knowledge about English law and English courts; nor what exactly the case is or under what law section it is being held. I assume it will be under UK advertising regulation which can be very strict!
We all know Apple can be quite "literal" in its claims; see for example how it advertises Tags in Notes, but conveniently omits that you cannot add them to Notes created on Share Sheets. In the case, the customer probably did not understand which and how messages get sync-deleted, and to be fair, most people don't understand, including me and a number of people on this thread. Some messages and txt seem to disappear immediately, and some do not. It seems to depend on whether it's an iMessage or a Txt, and whether the iPhone is on the same WiFi network or not. Apple Support pages are not clear about this.
But maybe the Author of this blog (that's really what it is) could explain it, that would be fab.
(I do expect Apple may get asked to clarify its messaging but they won't have to compensate anyone).
AppleInsider it’s a little too quick to defend Apple. Yes, the man brought his personal problems on himself, but under UK law there may well be grounds for legal action. The terms and conditions may be ruled unreasobable and unenforceable under UK trading laws. The apparent flaw may make the device “unfit for purpose” making the seller (not the manufacturer) liable for the failure and the article doesn’t mention whether his phone was bought from Apple or a third-party.
There's no defense of Apple here. They don't need our help.
And, nope as it pertains to T&C being unreasonable and unenforceable. The bolded above has been tried before, many times, in the UK courts.
I don't quite understand why the article had to be written with such smugness, especially because I doubt that the author has any knowledge about English law and English courts; nor what exactly the case is or under what law section it is being held. I assume it will be under UK advertising regulation which can be very strict!
We all know Apple can be quite "literal" in its claims; see for example how it advertises Tags in Notes, but conveniently omits that you cannot add them to Notes created on Share Sheets. In the case, the customer probably did not understand which and how messages get sync-deleted, and to be fair, most people don't understand, including me and a number of people on this thread. Some messages and txt seem to disappear immediately, and some do not. It seems to depend on whether it's an iMessage or a Txt, and whether the iPhone is on the same WiFi network or not. Apple Support pages are not clear about this.
But maybe the Author of this blog (that's really what it is) could explain it, that would be fab.
(I do expect Apple may get asked to clarify its messaging but they won't have to compensate anyone).
The UK lawyers we consulted about it during the process of writing were pretty clear that this guy has no chance.
FTA: "We, and the lawyers we spoke with before we published this story, are surprised that a reputable law firm would even consider taking this up."
Reminds me of this story about the guy whose wife divorced him on September 12,2001 - the day after 9/11. The guy worked in the North Tower of the WTC.
She called him on the morning of 9/11 after the first plane hit the North Tower asking frantically, 'where are you? are you ok?' He replied, 'where else? the office. why wouldn't I be ok?'
The next day he was served with divorce papers after the missus found it he was uptown in a hotel room committing hanky-panky.
AppleInsider it’s a little too quick to defend Apple. Yes, the man brought his personal problems on himself, but under UK law there may well be grounds for legal action. The terms and conditions may be ruled unreasobable and unenforceable under UK trading laws. The apparent flaw may make the device “unfit for purpose” making the seller (not the manufacturer) liable for the failure and the article doesn’t mention whether his phone was bought from Apple or a third-party.
There's no defense of Apple here. They don't need our help.
And, nope as it pertains to T&C being unreasonable and unenforceable. The bolded above has been tried before, many times, in the UK courts.
It has failed every time.
I agree that Apple is in no way liable for this guy's moral, ethical, and marital transgressions. He is solely responsible for his own actions and he may have very well to pay the price for doing what he's freely admitted to doing. This is a matter for family law and family court to adjudicate and has nothing at all to do with the manufacturer of a consumer product. Apple builds products for consumers at large to use. As long as the product itself has not inflicted harm upon a user while being used for its intended purpose, perhaps due to some product/material defect or design negligence, there's nothing here to bring Apple into the case. The iPhone and cloud service did not malfunction in any way. It was a human malfunction.
This person's claim is no different than a bank robber or iPhone thief suing Apple because the Find My Phone feature on a stolen iPhone that was taken during the commission of a crime allowed the police to track the robber/thief and perform an arrest. The iPhone didn't do anything wrong, the human committing the crime (or transgression) absolutely did something wrong and was caught. Their bad. Just goes to prove that technology and stupidity do not always go well together.
However, from a technical standpoint, this is a reminder that you can never fully subscribe to the notion of "ignoring the man behind the curtain" when it comes to how a machine, application, operating system, or service that creates an abstracted view of how something actually works behind the curtain. If you're counting on a product feature to cover your tracks you must fully understand how the thing actually works. Ignorance is not an excuse.
I don't understand, I think his complaint to Apple is quite reasonable.
He deleted a message. The message was not deleted.
Due to this he incurred significant loss.
But I agree it is ludicrous to think he will beat Apple's lawyers and T&Cs.
It’s his cheating that led to significant loss.
Two points:
1. is it significant loss, really? Was it more than the wife’s fair share of the marital assets? Should he ever have considered her share to be his?
2. What if it were a friend he showed the messages to and who he then extracted a promise to not divulge what he saw. But then the friend grew a conscience and told the wife. Could he sue the friend for the entire amount of the divorce settlement? Seems like the cheating is much more the proximate cause of the divorce versus the particular avenue via which the wife learned of it.
Yes what he did was very wrong, but it’s reasonable to expect a message to be deleted when you delete it. You can say all you want that it was a failure on his part to understand how things work, and that’s true, but it’s also absurd that devices using the same account aren’t synchronized. This isn’t 1995 and POP email.
Just because he’s a loser doesn’t make Apple’s lack of synchronization reasonable or mean he can’t expect privacy.
To be fair to this gentleman, when you go to delete a conversation on an iPhone, it doesn't seem to delete for connected Macs, but if you delete from a Mac, it does offer to delete from all other devices. This inconsistency does seem to be a valid bug.
Deleting a conversation on Mac, we see this, but the same warning isn't seen on an iPhone when deleting the same conversation...
Delete from all your devices?
This conversation will be deleted from all of your devices.
Another thing that annoys me and you would think would be automatic when you block someone on iMessage on iPhone that it would automatically block that number on iMessage on your Mac or iPad. It doesn’t and Blocking a contact in Messages is device specific. If you have someone blocked on your iOS device, the message will still come through on the Mac. If it’s using the same Apple ID it should block that person across all your Apple devices.
As we used to say when I was a kid, "Too bad, so sad."
The guy's failure to understand how things work, apparently including marriage, is his own fault. As to his alleged huge loss, his wife might just have a different view of that.
Apple should be sued and the man should win. It’s not because he did’t know the Apple ecosystem but because Apple syncing among devices are not-controllable by the Apple ID/account holder. Sometimes you need to wait a day or so for some messages/photos to sync through.
In the other hand, the woman should learn from Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones’s open marriage especially when one half can’t satisfy the sexually need of the other half.
Apple should be sued and the man should win. It’s not because he did’t know the Apple ecosystem but because Apple syncing among devices are not-controllable by the Apple ID/account holder. Sometimes you need to wait a day or so for some messages/photos to sync through.
In the other hand, the woman should learn from Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones’s open marriage especially when one half can’t satisfy the sexually need of the other half.
Apple's terms of service and how massive content distribution systems work, which is what message syncing is, in conjunction with user habits as it pertains to devices both profoundly disagree with your first point.
Comments
We all know Apple can be quite "literal" in its claims; see for example how it advertises Tags in Notes, but conveniently omits that you cannot add them to Notes created on Share Sheets. In the case, the customer probably did not understand which and how messages get sync-deleted, and to be fair, most people don't understand, including me and a number of people on this thread. Some messages and txt seem to disappear immediately, and some do not. It seems to depend on whether it's an iMessage or a Txt, and whether the iPhone is on the same WiFi network or not. Apple Support pages are not clear about this.
But maybe the Author of this blog (that's really what it is) could explain it, that would be fab.
(I do expect Apple may get asked to clarify its messaging but they won't have to compensate anyone).
And, nope as it pertains to T&C being unreasonable and unenforceable. The bolded above has been tried before, many times, in the UK courts.
It has failed every time.
FTA: "We, and the lawyers we spoke with before we published this story, are surprised that a reputable law firm would even consider taking this up."
The guy worked in the North Tower of the WTC.
She called him on the morning of 9/11 after the first plane hit the North Tower asking frantically, 'where are you? are you ok?'
He replied, 'where else? the office. why wouldn't I be ok?'
The next day he was served with divorce papers after the missus found it he was uptown in a hotel room committing hanky-panky.
This person's claim is no different than a bank robber or iPhone thief suing Apple because the Find My Phone feature on a stolen iPhone that was taken during the commission of a crime allowed the police to track the robber/thief and perform an arrest. The iPhone didn't do anything wrong, the human committing the crime (or transgression) absolutely did something wrong and was caught. Their bad. Just goes to prove that technology and stupidity do not always go well together.
However, from a technical standpoint, this is a reminder that you can never fully subscribe to the notion of "ignoring the man behind the curtain" when it comes to how a machine, application, operating system, or service that creates an abstracted view of how something actually works behind the curtain. If you're counting on a product feature to cover your tracks you must fully understand how the thing actually works. Ignorance is not an excuse.
1. is it significant loss, really? Was it more than the wife’s fair share of the marital assets? Should he ever have considered her share to be his?
Just because he’s a loser doesn’t make Apple’s lack of synchronization reasonable or mean he can’t expect privacy.
The guy's failure to understand how things work, apparently including marriage, is his own fault. As to his alleged huge loss, his wife might just have a different view of that.
In the other hand, the woman should learn from Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones’s open marriage especially when one half can’t satisfy the sexually need of the other half.