Welcome to socialism.... Lawsuits and politics make sure there is a chicken in every pot, forget about supply and demand.
In more "socialist" societies governments protect companies from these sorts of lawsuits by capping pay outs or just not allowing them. I think it was New Zealand that had a cap on law suits of just a few hundred thousand dollars (I could be wrong).
So no, this is not socialism, this is the new capitalism. Company gets rich, people file ambit law suits and attempt to gain revenue either through the courts or by settlement. These lawsuits are a business and a big one. Pure capitalism.
In more "socialist" societies governments protect companies from these sorts of lawsuits by capping pay outs or just not allowing them. I think it was New Zealand that had a cap on law suits of just a few hundred thousand dollars (I could be wrong).
So no, this is not socialism, this is the new capitalism. Company gets rich, people file ambit law suits and attempt to gain revenue either through the courts or by settlement. These lawsuits are a business and a big one. Pure capitalism.
Agreed... Responsible socialism means that there is some control over the judiciary by the state itself.
The legal system in this country is seriously screwed up in regards to tort.
Exactly. These low-life, ambulance chasers will do anything to make an easy buck.
The US should enact a "loser pays" system, where if someone files a frivolous lawsuit trying to "win the lottery" from businesses with deep pockets, the losing party (including the lawyer, imo) should have to pay all legal fees and a monetary fine to the winning side.
That would slow down all of these money grubbing lawyers who try and cast huge nets out (in the form of class action suits) against businesses.
I just bought a new car and now I keep getting caught in traffic jams!!! I'm suing FORD!!!
I thought this analogy fit, at first. But what if Ford built the roads, as well as the car? The 3G network is not a public road paid for by our taxes, but a private road, built with the cars it sells in mind. Perhaps this is a closer analogy:
I just bought the popular new Ford, but I can only drive on Ford's pathetic one-lane road with all my neighbors!!! Why sell me a car, promise high speeds, when the Ford roads cannot handle the load? I'm suing FORD!!!
I'm not saying that suing is an appropriate response; I don't think it is. But in the case where Ford builds the roads, the whole widget as Apple says, then responsibility is pretty clear.
My 3G connection is ok so far, occassionally switching to Edge. I would say I expected iPhone's 3G to be faster, it is still way better than what i get on other phones.
My 3G connection is ok so far, occassionally switching to Edge. I would say I expected iPhone's 3G to be faster, it is still way better than what i get on other phones.
What are your speeds? Since the iPhone uses an older version of WebKit that is bound to be slower at rendering pages than Safari 3.1.2 (or later) or FF 3 (or later) and the fact that it's only running at 412MHz CPU with a total of 128MB RAM the overall speeds will AT&T.
My 3G speeds are 5x my EDGE speeds. What are yours?
Microsoft is paying $750M to settle the lawsuit in the EU because it was bundling the OS with IE. Doesn't this sound similar? I like the iPhone but I don't like AT&T Service. 3G Service should be guaranteed if you are charging a premium of $10 per month. How about Verizon selling the FiOS service for a premium but without a guarantee for the speed?
Not similar at all. Microsoft has a monopoly controlling share of the OS market. ATT does not have a monopoly controlling share of the cell phone carrier market. And the iPhone only has about 1% of the cell phone market. Microsoft can literally put other software venders out of business (and they've done it before) if they bundle free software with their OS. Plus Microsoft is bundling their own software with the OS. ATT is not putting any other cell phone makers out of business because they have an exclusive contract to sell iPhones. And there are thousands of oher cell phones beside the iPhone. And ATT and Apple are two separate companies doing business together.
But the funny thing is that IE7 only runs in Windows. There is no OSX version. So if you want to use IE7 you got to use Windows. However, if you use Windows, you don't have to use IE7. Doesn't this sound similar?
What are your speeds? Since the iPhone uses an older version of WebKit that is bound to be slower at rendering pages than Safari 3.1.2 (or later) or FF 3 (or later) and the fact that it's only running at 412MHz CPU with a total of 128MB RAM the overall speeds will AT&T.
My 3G speeds are 5x my EDGE speeds. What are yours?
Umm - when the heck did either Apple or AT&T ever guarantee 3G coverage? Are they going to file a class action suit for every other phone on the planet that doens't hold a signal 100% of the time? If anything he might have a case against AT&T but not Apple.
Apple has a disclaimer on their website stating that throughput will vary between cellular networks.
On the other hand... If you buy the phone and subscribe to ATT's service, as Apple requires, it's reasonable to assume that you will experience the advertised features and benefits which includes 3G performance.
Apple should have given people the freedom of choice in choosing carriers. It's your own fault if you choose a bad carrier. It's Apple's fault if they require a specific carrier that ends up not working.
I just bought a new car and now I keep getting caught in traffic jams!!! I'm suing FORD!!!
That makes sense, but now take away your ability to choose which roads you take. You're going to be a little more upset if you're always stuck in traffic because Ford's navigating.
Apple should have given people the freedom of choice in choosing carriers. It's your own fault if you choose a bad carrier. It's Apple's fault if they require a specific carrier that ends up not working.
Besides the facts that most people are doing fine with their iPhone 3G, that other OEMs and carriers state the theoretical speed of the radio (eg: 7.2Mbps), and that other carriers have exclusive rights with other OEMs phones (eg: Sprint/Samsung Instinct, Verizon/BB Thunder, T-Mobile/HTC Dream, AT&T/BB Bold). What US carrier could I get 3G speeds on if I didn't have to go with AT&T? There isn't any.
The difference here than with the other OEMs is that they sell other phones to other carriers, too. But they have been in the game a lot longer and have the additional models to sell. Apple is only been selling cellphones in the US for a little over a year. They needed a carrier to hold their hand. In the future this probably won't be an issue after the contracts end, but there is still the issue with CDMA2000 and T-Mobile's unusual 3G frequency band.
That makes sense, but now take away your ability to choose which roads you take. You're going to be a little more upset if you're always stuck in traffic because Ford's navigating.
That strengthens his argument. If a tower or road is congested you can go to some place where the road or cellualr traffic is not as much.
The US should enact a "loser pays" system, where if someone files a frivolous lawsuit trying to "win the lottery" from businesses with deep pockets, the losing party (including the lawyer, imo) should have to pay all legal fees and a monetary fine to the winning side.
That would slow down all of these money grubbing lawyers who try and cast huge nets out (in the form of class action suits) against businesses.
I cant agree with this fully, since there is a good chance that if you do create a looser pays system the legal system would become more of a rich persons avenue. Its bad enough as is for the average Joe to afford a lawyer, it would only get worse if lawyers and their clients had to pay fines for loosing a case. There needs to be serious reform of the tort system for sure, but I think there are better ways to do it than with possibly punishing those with real claims due to the actions of those creating frivilous suits. On would be better oversight and decision making from the judges in this country. When ambulance chasers are trying to make a buck with baseless suits the judges involved need to grow some balls and throw them out on their asses. I also think that settling out of court, much like plea bargaining, should be eliminated as an option. Settling out of court does nothing but use the tax funded legal system as a bargaining chip and wastes resources that could be better used to deal with real cases. It also emobldens people to sue more in the hopes that they can get a quick settlement. In the short term it looks good for the bean counters, but in the long run it costs more due to more cases and more settlements...
As for the case in question, its California. Why are we surprised that the land of fruits and nuts can come up with this kind of crap.
That strengthens his argument. If a tower or road is congested you can go to some place where the road or cellualr traffic is not as much.
No. Apple requires that you use ATT, so you have no choice in choosing a tower, road, or cellular network with less congestion.
It's your fault / responsibility if you choose a bad carrier. It's Apple's fault / responsibility if they require the use of a bad carrier and holding them accountable is fair. The first 30 days are fine if you can return the phone. You're kind of screwed after that.
If you buy a product and do everything required by the manufacturer, shouldn't you expect the features to work?
No. Apple requires that you use ATT, so you have no choice in choosing a tower, road, or cellular network with less congestion.
It's your fault / responsibility if you choose a bad carrier. It's Apple's fault / responsibility if they require the use of a bad carrier and holding them accountable is fair. The first 30 days are fine if you can return the phone. You're kind of screwed after that.
You still have to choose to sign up with AT&T. You are made well aware of the carrier prior to purchase. They even tell you to do a pre-signup checklist. If you don't like AT&T or don't have coverage in your area then you shouldn't be buying an iPhone. Saying you were forced to sign up with AT&T because you really wanted an iPhone is nonsense. I wanted a really hot girlfriend when I was a kid so I choose to overlook some other aspects that make one a good companion.
Quote:
If you buy a product and do everything required by the manufacturer, shouldn't you expect the features to work?
The manufacturer is responsible for the HW features. The carrier is responsible for the cellular access. If the iPhone's HW or SW is faulty then Apple would be culpable, if it's on AT&T end then it's not Apple's fault.
If anyone has legitimate beef it's Apple against AT&T for making their product look bad, or AT&T against Apple for making their network weak.. providing that there is proof one way of the other of the other having a faulty product or service.
Comments
Welcome to socialism.... Lawsuits and politics make sure there is a chicken in every pot, forget about supply and demand.
In more "socialist" societies governments protect companies from these sorts of lawsuits by capping pay outs or just not allowing them. I think it was New Zealand that had a cap on law suits of just a few hundred thousand dollars (I could be wrong).
So no, this is not socialism, this is the new capitalism. Company gets rich, people file ambit law suits and attempt to gain revenue either through the courts or by settlement. These lawsuits are a business and a big one. Pure capitalism.
..and now the North East has no data. Edge or 3G. Seems like they might onto something.
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2008/...ave-a-problem/
YUP... I bet the lawyers are rejoicing right about now... Sending emails to each other and what not, using their iPho... oh wait, er... BlackBerry.
In more "socialist" societies governments protect companies from these sorts of lawsuits by capping pay outs or just not allowing them. I think it was New Zealand that had a cap on law suits of just a few hundred thousand dollars (I could be wrong).
So no, this is not socialism, this is the new capitalism. Company gets rich, people file ambit law suits and attempt to gain revenue either through the courts or by settlement. These lawsuits are a business and a big one. Pure capitalism.
Agreed... Responsible socialism means that there is some control over the judiciary by the state itself.
The legal system in this country is seriously screwed up in regards to tort.
Exactly. These low-life, ambulance chasers will do anything to make an easy buck.
The US should enact a "loser pays" system, where if someone files a frivolous lawsuit trying to "win the lottery" from businesses with deep pockets, the losing party (including the lawyer, imo) should have to pay all legal fees and a monetary fine to the winning side.
That would slow down all of these money grubbing lawyers who try and cast huge nets out (in the form of class action suits) against businesses.
I just bought a new car and now I keep getting caught in traffic jams!!! I'm suing FORD!!!
I thought this analogy fit, at first. But what if Ford built the roads, as well as the car? The 3G network is not a public road paid for by our taxes, but a private road, built with the cars it sells in mind. Perhaps this is a closer analogy:
I just bought the popular new Ford, but I can only drive on Ford's pathetic one-lane road with all my neighbors!!! Why sell me a car, promise high speeds, when the Ford roads cannot handle the load? I'm suing FORD!!!
I'm not saying that suing is an appropriate response; I don't think it is. But in the case where Ford builds the roads, the whole widget as Apple says, then responsibility is pretty clear.
My 3G connection is ok so far, occassionally switching to Edge. I would say I expected iPhone's 3G to be faster, it is still way better than what i get on other phones.
What are your speeds? Since the iPhone uses an older version of WebKit that is bound to be slower at rendering pages than Safari 3.1.2 (or later) or FF 3 (or later) and the fact that it's only running at 412MHz CPU with a total of 128MB RAM the overall speeds will AT&T.
My 3G speeds are 5x my EDGE speeds. What are yours?
Here's to your argument :
Microsoft is paying $750M to settle the lawsuit in the EU because it was bundling the OS with IE. Doesn't this sound similar? I like the iPhone but I don't like AT&T Service. 3G Service should be guaranteed if you are charging a premium of $10 per month. How about Verizon selling the FiOS service for a premium but without a guarantee for the speed?
Not similar at all. Microsoft has a monopoly controlling share of the OS market. ATT does not have a monopoly controlling share of the cell phone carrier market. And the iPhone only has about 1% of the cell phone market. Microsoft can literally put other software venders out of business (and they've done it before) if they bundle free software with their OS. Plus Microsoft is bundling their own software with the OS. ATT is not putting any other cell phone makers out of business because they have an exclusive contract to sell iPhones. And there are thousands of oher cell phones beside the iPhone. And ATT and Apple are two separate companies doing business together.
But the funny thing is that IE7 only runs in Windows. There is no OSX version. So if you want to use IE7 you got to use Windows. However, if you use Windows, you don't have to use IE7. Doesn't this sound similar?
What are your speeds? Since the iPhone uses an older version of WebKit that is bound to be slower at rendering pages than Safari 3.1.2 (or later) or FF 3 (or later) and the fact that it's only running at 412MHz CPU with a total of 128MB RAM the overall speeds will AT&T.
My 3G speeds are 5x my EDGE speeds. What are yours?
mine is 2-4x faster than EDGE. it varies.
..."even when 3G coverage is guaranteed"
Umm - when the heck did either Apple or AT&T ever guarantee 3G coverage? Are they going to file a class action suit for every other phone on the planet that doens't hold a signal 100% of the time? If anything he might have a case against AT&T but not Apple.
Apple has a disclaimer on their website stating that throughput will vary between cellular networks.
On the other hand... If you buy the phone and subscribe to ATT's service, as Apple requires, it's reasonable to assume that you will experience the advertised features and benefits which includes 3G performance.
Apple should have given people the freedom of choice in choosing carriers. It's your own fault if you choose a bad carrier. It's Apple's fault if they require a specific carrier that ends up not working.
Nobody ever guarantees 100% up-time.
I just bought a new car and now I keep getting caught in traffic jams!!! I'm suing FORD!!!
That makes sense, but now take away your ability to choose which roads you take. You're going to be a little more upset if you're always stuck in traffic because Ford's navigating.
Apple should have given people the freedom of choice in choosing carriers. It's your own fault if you choose a bad carrier. It's Apple's fault if they require a specific carrier that ends up not working.
Besides the facts that most people are doing fine with their iPhone 3G, that other OEMs and carriers state the theoretical speed of the radio (eg: 7.2Mbps), and that other carriers have exclusive rights with other OEMs phones (eg: Sprint/Samsung Instinct, Verizon/BB Thunder, T-Mobile/HTC Dream, AT&T/BB Bold). What US carrier could I get 3G speeds on if I didn't have to go with AT&T? There isn't any.
The difference here than with the other OEMs is that they sell other phones to other carriers, too. But they have been in the game a lot longer and have the additional models to sell. Apple is only been selling cellphones in the US for a little over a year. They needed a carrier to hold their hand. In the future this probably won't be an issue after the contracts end, but there is still the issue with CDMA2000 and T-Mobile's unusual 3G frequency band.
That makes sense, but now take away your ability to choose which roads you take. You're going to be a little more upset if you're always stuck in traffic because Ford's navigating.
That strengthens his argument. If a tower or road is congested you can go to some place where the road or cellualr traffic is not as much.
The US should enact a "loser pays" system, where if someone files a frivolous lawsuit trying to "win the lottery" from businesses with deep pockets, the losing party (including the lawyer, imo) should have to pay all legal fees and a monetary fine to the winning side.
That would slow down all of these money grubbing lawyers who try and cast huge nets out (in the form of class action suits) against businesses.
I cant agree with this fully, since there is a good chance that if you do create a looser pays system the legal system would become more of a rich persons avenue. Its bad enough as is for the average Joe to afford a lawyer, it would only get worse if lawyers and their clients had to pay fines for loosing a case. There needs to be serious reform of the tort system for sure, but I think there are better ways to do it than with possibly punishing those with real claims due to the actions of those creating frivilous suits. On would be better oversight and decision making from the judges in this country. When ambulance chasers are trying to make a buck with baseless suits the judges involved need to grow some balls and throw them out on their asses. I also think that settling out of court, much like plea bargaining, should be eliminated as an option. Settling out of court does nothing but use the tax funded legal system as a bargaining chip and wastes resources that could be better used to deal with real cases. It also emobldens people to sue more in the hopes that they can get a quick settlement. In the short term it looks good for the bean counters, but in the long run it costs more due to more cases and more settlements...
As for the case in question, its California. Why are we surprised that the land of fruits and nuts can come up with this kind of crap.
That strengthens his argument. If a tower or road is congested you can go to some place where the road or cellualr traffic is not as much.
No. Apple requires that you use ATT, so you have no choice in choosing a tower, road, or cellular network with less congestion.
It's your fault / responsibility if you choose a bad carrier. It's Apple's fault / responsibility if they require the use of a bad carrier and holding them accountable is fair. The first 30 days are fine if you can return the phone. You're kind of screwed after that.
If you buy a product and do everything required by the manufacturer, shouldn't you expect the features to work?
No. Apple requires that you use ATT, so you have no choice in choosing a tower, road, or cellular network with less congestion.
It's your fault / responsibility if you choose a bad carrier. It's Apple's fault / responsibility if they require the use of a bad carrier and holding them accountable is fair. The first 30 days are fine if you can return the phone. You're kind of screwed after that.
You still have to choose to sign up with AT&T. You are made well aware of the carrier prior to purchase. They even tell you to do a pre-signup checklist. If you don't like AT&T or don't have coverage in your area then you shouldn't be buying an iPhone. Saying you were forced to sign up with AT&T because you really wanted an iPhone is nonsense. I wanted a really hot girlfriend when I was a kid so I choose to overlook some other aspects that make one a good companion.
If you buy a product and do everything required by the manufacturer, shouldn't you expect the features to work?
The manufacturer is responsible for the HW features. The carrier is responsible for the cellular access. If the iPhone's HW or SW is faulty then Apple would be culpable, if it's on AT&T end then it's not Apple's fault.
If anyone has legitimate beef it's Apple against AT&T for making their product look bad, or AT&T against Apple for making their network weak.. providing that there is proof one way of the other of the other having a faulty product or service.