I know that the phone plays a big roll in 3G connection, however, this 3G service is PROVIDED by AT&T not Apple. Now going off of that AT&T 3G connection are different all over the US. No two cites have the same 3G connection speed. For example, Chicago, New York, LA, big important cities to AT&T like those will have and do have a faster 3G connection than I do in Minneapolis. That is all AT&T. Apple has no control over this. Also, I love how she is using the internet as her hard facts and completely believing what AT&T has told her about 3G connection. Do you really think AT&T would tell you the truth about real connection speeds for their 3G network...ummm no.
Well Mrs. Smith I wish you the best, but I'm sure Apple gets plenty of pointless lawsuits sent to them every week and yours is no different than the rest. Might as well stop now before you receive a cease and desist letter from Apples army of amazing lawyers.
She will get traction from this simply because for every lawyer and expert Apple has, there will be others that want to take a shot. As this is quasi-exact science there is plenty wiggle from for interpretation of what is right and wrong.
Determining if it was false - have to look at the research done to make that claim. If the research was good then what more could Apple do? Also the amount of people in real-world situations who DON'T get that speed increase would play some part (and I'd say that <1% not getting the boost wouldn't be enough).
We don't get Edge on our GSM network, so can't comment on speed change. 3G is certainly about 5-10 times faster than GPRS. In my office we get flakey 3G (and we are in a 3G area) so maybe we are considered part of that <1% who are not getting double speed (when in the office)?
But did Apple qualify the speed with "up to" or some other term showing this was possible but not guaranteed? Besides that, the speed of the network has no baring outside of the iPhone which is technically capable of 7.2Mbps with the Infineon HSDPA chips that are reportedly being used. At least Apple is advertising that theoretical top speeds of the chips like every other manufacturers' spec sheets. Apple can't be held responsible if AT&T doesn't have any 3G coverage or as fast as advertised 3G coverage in her area.
But did Apple qualify the speed with "up to" or some other term showing this was possible but not guaranteed. But the speed of the network has no baring outside of the iPhone. Apple can't be held responsible if AT&T doesn't have coverage or fast coverage in her area. The Infineon HSDPA chips are capable of 7.2Mbps. At least Apple is advertising that theoretical top speeds of the chips like every other manufacturers' spec sheets.
This is EXACTLY correct! My son works for AT&T and what customers DO NOT understand is that listed speeds are NOT guaranteed, and speed thereof and less than is the standard for ALL bloody providers. Apple has not in any way mislead anyone.
Having started with the beloved Motorola brick it astounds me how ignorant people are nowadays who use mobile phones.
Okay so performing substandard but still performing is a passing grade, but what if these performance parameters are not what Apple advertised? Then there is a problem. I would like to see the technical data on the performance. I think the fact that Apple finally came out and admitted there was a problem was what people (this lady) was waiting for. Apple admitted a problem in their phone.
I agree that there is a problem which Apple needs to address. And Apple has issued two updates to the firmware and Jobs promised yesterday that a further fix would be coming in September. Of course, the plaintiff and her attorneys (and, no doubt, other) had no way of knowing Apple's future plans because Apple has been silent. On the other hand, I can see where Apple's speedier acknowledgement of a problem would have seen countless more suits already filed.
As is the case in all lawsuits, the details matter. For instance, Apple can reasonably argue that the claim that the iPhone 3G is "twice as fast, half the price" is factually correct: the hardware and software are designed to operate at least at twice the EDGE speeds and in many cases do, and the price of the 3G handset is, in fact, half that of the original version. Apple can also reasonably argue that her "expectations" are a QOS issue which needs to be addressed by ATT. Mind you, nothing I have said exonerates Apple or the iPhone 3G and if this suit causes Apple to more quickly address the issues, great.
This is EXACTLY correct! My son works for AT&T and what customers DO NOT understand is that listed speeds are NOT guaranteed, and speed thereof and less than is the standard for ALL bloody providers. Apple has not in any way mislead anyone.
Having started with the beloved Motorola brick it astounds me how ignorant people are nowadays who use mobile phones.
This is correct in that Sonera offers 3G speeds. However, if you are willing to pay more you can get a guaranteed max, but the caveat is that it has to be in a metro area with blanket 3G coverage. If I request and pay for a higher speed and am in a metro area with blanket coverage and the iPhone does not deliver then, well yes Apple is "probably" libel as the phone is the problem, not the network.
As for ignorance with cell phones, but in many cases the US is lagging behind the rest of the world.
I agree that there is a problem which Apple needs to address. And Apple has issued two updates to the firmware and Jobs promised yesterday that a further fix would be coming in September. Of course, the plaintiff and her attorneys (and, no doubt, other) had no way of knowing Apple's future plans because they have been silent. On the other hand, I can see where Apple's speedier acknowledgement of a problem would have seen countless more suits already filed.
As is the case in all lawsuits, the details matter. For instance, Apple can reasonably argue that the claim that the iPhone 3G is "twice as fast, half the price" is factually correct: the hardware and software are designed to operate at least at twice the EDGE speeds and in many cases do, and the price of the 3G handset is, in fact, half that of the original version. Apple can also reasonably argue that her "expectations" are a QOS issue which needs to be addressed by ATT. Mind you, nothing I have said exonerates Apple or the iPhone 3G and if this suit causes Apple to more quickly address the issues, great.
For sure it will be interesting. I have popcorn on hand. This will be must see TV.
But if the problem is not with the phone but with your location and AT&T 3G speeds in that area a new phone would not solve the issue.
Sorry my friend. I live in Finland at the moment. The best networks and services in the world.
To be fair, for the most part my iPhone is okay. I think my Nokia's are faster but then again to be truthful I do not care. I have unlimited (really no limits or caps or fine print) data for less than 25 dollars, so if it takes a bit longer to get the page it just does. I don't pay for it anyway.
However if I did pay and it was not right because the networks here are pretty darn good, then Apple would have to pony up a phone or some cash.
Radio signals vary from location to location and from device to device. You can have to two devices using the same network and device A will have a stronger signal than Device B. You can take those same two devices to another location and the opposite will be true. No one can guarantee a strong radio signal everywhere. It is in fact impossible. You can't even guarantee signal strength over a physical wire connection.
This lawsuit has no merit and no legs to stand on.
Just for kicks I headed over to Wired.com's iphone 3g speeds site (http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/0...ne-global.html) to check out Alabama. The reported download speeds for Birmingham show 3g as being ~6x faster than EDGE, all being faster than 1000 kbps. Of course no one who is having problems with their phone is likely to bother participating.
I'm no lawyer so I'm not really sure I understand her claim. How does she expect to get money out of this? Will she claim her inability to surf the internet twice as fast as the original iPhone caused her emotional distress or loss in productivity? I don't see how she could be awarded any more than the cost of the phone. I bought some stick-on wall hangers last week and they didn't stick to my wall at all. False advertising? Call me crazy, but instead of talking to a lawyer about a potential lawsuit, I returned them to the store for my money...
Also, for the record, based on the vague wording of the article and current sales estimates, the affected percentage could be anywhere from 0.2% to 3.0% of owners.
In the 10-page complaint, Jessica Smith of Birmingham asserts that Apple's marketing campaign is a breach of express warranty as it promises Internet access "twice as fast" as with the original where the practical experience has fallen well short of the mark.
The words "practical experience" might be what the case hinges on. In my opinion "practical" implies nothing out of the ordinary, just day to day usage. If she can prove that her practical, day to day, usage was affected and not what Apple promised she might win.
* Comparisons between iPhone 3G (8GB) and first-generation iPhone (8GB) running on EDGE. Actual speeds vary by site conditions. Requires new two-year AT&T rate plan, sold separately to qualified customers.
I'm no lawyer so I'm not really sure I understand her claim. How does she expect to get money out of this? Will she claim her inability to surf the internet twice as fast as the original iPhone caused her emotional distress or loss in productivity? I don't see how she could be awarded any more than the cost of the phone....
The economic injury is the part of the suit that seems to be overreaching to me. I can understand the monetary damage claims for the cost of the handset and, possibly, ATT service. Then again, I am no lawyer.
I've had my iPhone 3G for a month. I live in the DFW are where anyone I know with a 3G phone has all their bars. 90% of the time, I have 1 bar or it drops down to EDGE. I did not buy a 3G iPhone so it could run on EDGE most of the time.
Because the 3G signal is so low, it takes forever to load a web page, or use GPS. Version 2.0.2 didn't solve the problem, so something has to be done.
So fuc* all of you people that say this is crap. I have a $300 phone that doesn't do what I paid for it to do.
I've had my iPhone 3G for a month. I live in the DFW are where anyone I know with a 3G phone has all their bars. 90% of the time, I have 1 bar or it drops down to EDGE. I did not buy a 3G iPhone so it could run on EDGE most of the time.
Because the 3G signal is so low, it takes forever to load a web page, or use GPS. Version 2.0.2 didn't solve the problem, so something has to be done.
So fuc* all of you people that say this is crap. I have a $300 phone that doesn't do what I paid for it to do.
1) When did you buy it? Are you still within the 30 day return policy?
2) You say "everyone with 3G phone has all their bars" but you don't say if they are all on AT&T or if they are on Sprint or Verizon. This makes a big difference in determining where the problem lays.
3) You don't state or imply that this just started with one of the updates so I have to assume this has been an issue from the start so, assuming you answered no in #1, why didn't you get your money if you thought the device or service was so bad?
I've had my iPhone 3G for a month. I live in the DFW are where anyone I know with a 3G phone has all their bars. 90% of the time, I have 1 bar or it drops down to EDGE. I did not buy a 3G iPhone so it could run on EDGE most of the time.
Because the 3G signal is so low, it takes forever to load a web page, or use GPS. Version 2.0.2 didn't solve the problem, so something has to be done.
So fuc* all of you people that say this is crap. I have a $300 phone that doesn't do what I paid for it to do.
Have you contacted Apple? ATT? Visited an Apple Store?
Comments
I know that the phone plays a big roll in 3G connection, however, this 3G service is PROVIDED by AT&T not Apple. Now going off of that AT&T 3G connection are different all over the US. No two cites have the same 3G connection speed. For example, Chicago, New York, LA, big important cities to AT&T like those will have and do have a faster 3G connection than I do in Minneapolis. That is all AT&T. Apple has no control over this. Also, I love how she is using the internet as her hard facts and completely believing what AT&T has told her about 3G connection. Do you really think AT&T would tell you the truth about real connection speeds for their 3G network...ummm no.
Well Mrs. Smith I wish you the best, but I'm sure Apple gets plenty of pointless lawsuits sent to them every week and yours is no different than the rest. Might as well stop now before you receive a cease and desist letter from Apples army of amazing lawyers.
She will get traction from this simply because for every lawyer and expert Apple has, there will be others that want to take a shot. As this is quasi-exact science there is plenty wiggle from for interpretation of what is right and wrong.
Only if she can show that
1. Apple advertised it was 2 times faster
2. This was false.
Determining if it was false - have to look at the research done to make that claim. If the research was good then what more could Apple do? Also the amount of people in real-world situations who DON'T get that speed increase would play some part (and I'd say that <1% not getting the boost wouldn't be enough).
We don't get Edge on our GSM network, so can't comment on speed change. 3G is certainly about 5-10 times faster than GPRS. In my office we get flakey 3G (and we are in a 3G area) so maybe we are considered part of that <1% who are not getting double speed (when in the office)?
But did Apple qualify the speed with "up to" or some other term showing this was possible but not guaranteed? Besides that, the speed of the network has no baring outside of the iPhone which is technically capable of 7.2Mbps with the Infineon HSDPA chips that are reportedly being used. At least Apple is advertising that theoretical top speeds of the chips like every other manufacturers' spec sheets. Apple can't be held responsible if AT&T doesn't have any 3G coverage or as fast as advertised 3G coverage in her area.
But did Apple qualify the speed with "up to" or some other term showing this was possible but not guaranteed. But the speed of the network has no baring outside of the iPhone. Apple can't be held responsible if AT&T doesn't have coverage or fast coverage in her area. The Infineon HSDPA chips are capable of 7.2Mbps. At least Apple is advertising that theoretical top speeds of the chips like every other manufacturers' spec sheets.
This is EXACTLY correct! My son works for AT&T and what customers DO NOT understand is that listed speeds are NOT guaranteed, and speed thereof and less than is the standard for ALL bloody providers. Apple has not in any way mislead anyone.
Having started with the beloved Motorola brick it astounds me how ignorant people are nowadays who use mobile phones.
Okay so performing substandard but still performing is a passing grade, but what if these performance parameters are not what Apple advertised? Then there is a problem. I would like to see the technical data on the performance. I think the fact that Apple finally came out and admitted there was a problem was what people (this lady) was waiting for. Apple admitted a problem in their phone.
I agree that there is a problem which Apple needs to address. And Apple has issued two updates to the firmware and Jobs promised yesterday that a further fix would be coming in September. Of course, the plaintiff and her attorneys (and, no doubt, other) had no way of knowing Apple's future plans because Apple has been silent. On the other hand, I can see where Apple's speedier acknowledgement of a problem would have seen countless more suits already filed.
As is the case in all lawsuits, the details matter. For instance, Apple can reasonably argue that the claim that the iPhone 3G is "twice as fast, half the price" is factually correct: the hardware and software are designed to operate at least at twice the EDGE speeds and in many cases do, and the price of the 3G handset is, in fact, half that of the original version. Apple can also reasonably argue that her "expectations" are a QOS issue which needs to be addressed by ATT. Mind you, nothing I have said exonerates Apple or the iPhone 3G and if this suit causes Apple to more quickly address the issues, great.
This is EXACTLY correct! My son works for AT&T and what customers DO NOT understand is that listed speeds are NOT guaranteed, and speed thereof and less than is the standard for ALL bloody providers. Apple has not in any way mislead anyone.
Having started with the beloved Motorola brick it astounds me how ignorant people are nowadays who use mobile phones.
This is correct in that Sonera offers 3G speeds. However, if you are willing to pay more you can get a guaranteed max, but the caveat is that it has to be in a metro area with blanket 3G coverage. If I request and pay for a higher speed and am in a metro area with blanket coverage and the iPhone does not deliver then, well yes Apple is "probably" libel as the phone is the problem, not the network.
As for ignorance with cell phones, but in many cases the US is lagging behind the rest of the world.
I agree that there is a problem which Apple needs to address. And Apple has issued two updates to the firmware and Jobs promised yesterday that a further fix would be coming in September. Of course, the plaintiff and her attorneys (and, no doubt, other) had no way of knowing Apple's future plans because they have been silent. On the other hand, I can see where Apple's speedier acknowledgement of a problem would have seen countless more suits already filed.
As is the case in all lawsuits, the details matter. For instance, Apple can reasonably argue that the claim that the iPhone 3G is "twice as fast, half the price" is factually correct: the hardware and software are designed to operate at least at twice the EDGE speeds and in many cases do, and the price of the 3G handset is, in fact, half that of the original version. Apple can also reasonably argue that her "expectations" are a QOS issue which needs to be addressed by ATT. Mind you, nothing I have said exonerates Apple or the iPhone 3G and if this suit causes Apple to more quickly address the issues, great.
For sure it will be interesting. I have popcorn on hand. This will be must see TV.
As for ignorance with cell phones, but in many cases the US is lagging behind the rest of the world.
Agreed.
Personally, I would settle for a new phone.
But if the problem is not with the phone but with your location and AT&T 3G speeds in that area a new phone would not solve the issue.
For sure it will be interesting. I have popcorn on hand. This will be must see TV.
More like must avoid TV. I can only imagine the boring minutia that these kinds of suits entail.
But if the problem is not with the phone but with your location and AT&T 3G speeds in that area a new phone would not solve the issue.
Sorry my friend. I live in Finland at the moment. The best networks and services in the world.
To be fair, for the most part my iPhone is okay. I think my Nokia's are faster but then again to be truthful I do not care. I have unlimited (really no limits or caps or fine print) data for less than 25 dollars, so if it takes a bit longer to get the page it just does. I don't pay for it anyway.
However if I did pay and it was not right because the networks here are pretty darn good, then Apple would have to pony up a phone or some cash.
More like must avoid TV. I can only imagine the boring minutia that these kinds of suits entail.
I'm just here for the entertainment value. I hope some performance data gets released.
This lawsuit has no merit and no legs to stand on.
I'm no lawyer so I'm not really sure I understand her claim. How does she expect to get money out of this? Will she claim her inability to surf the internet twice as fast as the original iPhone caused her emotional distress or loss in productivity? I don't see how she could be awarded any more than the cost of the phone. I bought some stick-on wall hangers last week and they didn't stick to my wall at all. False advertising? Call me crazy, but instead of talking to a lawyer about a potential lawsuit, I returned them to the store for my money...
Also, for the record, based on the vague wording of the article and current sales estimates, the affected percentage could be anywhere from 0.2% to 3.0% of owners.
In the 10-page complaint, Jessica Smith of Birmingham asserts that Apple's marketing campaign is a breach of express warranty as it promises Internet access "twice as fast" as with the original where the practical experience has fallen well short of the mark.
The words "practical experience" might be what the case hinges on. In my opinion "practical" implies nothing out of the ordinary, just day to day usage. If she can prove that her practical, day to day, usage was affected and not what Apple promised she might win.
* Comparisons between iPhone 3G (8GB) and first-generation iPhone (8GB) running on EDGE. Actual speeds vary by site conditions. Requires new two-year AT&T rate plan, sold separately to qualified customers.
I'm no lawyer so I'm not really sure I understand her claim. How does she expect to get money out of this? Will she claim her inability to surf the internet twice as fast as the original iPhone caused her emotional distress or loss in productivity? I don't see how she could be awarded any more than the cost of the phone....
The economic injury is the part of the suit that seems to be overreaching to me. I can understand the monetary damage claims for the cost of the handset and, possibly, ATT service. Then again, I am no lawyer.
I've had my iPhone 3G for a month. I live in the DFW are where anyone I know with a 3G phone has all their bars. 90% of the time, I have 1 bar or it drops down to EDGE. I did not buy a 3G iPhone so it could run on EDGE most of the time.
Because the 3G signal is so low, it takes forever to load a web page, or use GPS. Version 2.0.2 didn't solve the problem, so something has to be done.
So fuc* all of you people that say this is crap. I have a $300 phone that doesn't do what I paid for it to do.
Well you know what? I'm with her.
I've had my iPhone 3G for a month. I live in the DFW are where anyone I know with a 3G phone has all their bars. 90% of the time, I have 1 bar or it drops down to EDGE. I did not buy a 3G iPhone so it could run on EDGE most of the time.
Because the 3G signal is so low, it takes forever to load a web page, or use GPS. Version 2.0.2 didn't solve the problem, so something has to be done.
So fuc* all of you people that say this is crap. I have a $300 phone that doesn't do what I paid for it to do.
1) When did you buy it? Are you still within the 30 day return policy?
2) You say "everyone with 3G phone has all their bars" but you don't say if they are all on AT&T or if they are on Sprint or Verizon. This makes a big difference in determining where the problem lays.
3) You don't state or imply that this just started with one of the updates so I have to assume this has been an issue from the start so, assuming you answered no in #1, why didn't you get your money if you thought the device or service was so bad?
Well you know what? I'm with her.
I've had my iPhone 3G for a month. I live in the DFW are where anyone I know with a 3G phone has all their bars. 90% of the time, I have 1 bar or it drops down to EDGE. I did not buy a 3G iPhone so it could run on EDGE most of the time.
Because the 3G signal is so low, it takes forever to load a web page, or use GPS. Version 2.0.2 didn't solve the problem, so something has to be done.
So fuc* all of you people that say this is crap. I have a $300 phone that doesn't do what I paid for it to do.
Have you contacted Apple? ATT? Visited an Apple Store?