i hope this puts a little pressure on at&t to take their heads out of their arses. no tethering - i can understand if the network cannot handle the amount of bandwidth it requires to allow this for all iphone users.
but MMS? give me a break. i bet Apple is extremely pissed that this feature is left out. im really beginning to dislike AT&T.
I can send evidence of the first MMS I sent on the day that Apple delivered the OS 3.0 update, just as Apple said it would.
Does it matter that I'm in Australia?
For this one the ball is squarely in AT&T's court.
Apple have delivered the feature, the capability and the international community is using it. AT&T have not implemented it yet. It is there problem, not Apple's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
Clearly people cannot read. "Coming Soon" must have some other legal definition that I'm not aware of.
If these cases are not immediately thrown out, I'll have literally no remaining faith in the legal system of the U.S.
Therefore the feature is not advertised as available in the U.S.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vandil
Marketing a feature and then not delivering is false advertisement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woode
*takes off fanboy hat*
Well, the point is that Apple and AT&T are selling the iPhone with MMS as a feature. Said feature is inoperative. Selling an item to consumers, claiming it will perform a certain way, when in actuality it won't, is illegal in the US. Sounds like a valid lawsuit to me, but IANAL.
Apple have delivered the feature and it operates. The fact that AT&T don't have the technical know how to flip a switch is not apples problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woode
Why the heck is AT&T dragging their feet on this? Apple has done it's part by providing the 3.0 update, though they should never use MMS as a selling point if the network won't support it because of the above. But WTF is AT&T's problem? Just freaking enable MMS -- there's no valid technical reason not to. (What, it'll cause high network load? I thought you guys had the best 3G network EVAR?)
Agree 100%. Apple should not be included in the law suit, not there problem. What kind of Law Firms does the US have?
While I understand the frustration of not having MMS and those who could care less the lawsuit would have more merit to bring litigation against ATT for over charging iPhone users for a service they did not provide. MMS is included in the messaging plans automatically. Person A pays 30.00 for said service family messaging service and receives it. Person B pays the same and does not get the MMS portion. One could say that iPhone user knew this when they signed up but that still does not negate the fact that ATT has grossly over charged iPhone customers for a service it did not provide once the function was available on the device. Prior to device function I would say there is no cause for litigation but as soon as the availability was there the function should have been.
Wow, now you can sue for not delivering features fast enough. What a crazy world we live in.
Indeed. And Apple have delivered their side, as it works in other countries, so how it can include Apple is beyond me. Apple put in a disclaimer in the US adverts saying late summer - some people don't appear to understand that summer ends in mid September.
It almost makes me well up with tears, to think that somebody actually cares THIS much about MMS, to not only make up a scenario that doesn't exist (false advert), and then try to prosecute it....over MMS on a phone.
Do these people have any idea what's been happening in this country with Flu fear mongering? Anti Second Amendment Propaganda? HEALTHCARE!!!!!
I literally want to weep at the idea that someone could, in these times, find this important. Makes me so sick.
Wish I lived in America. I'm sure I could think of something to sue Apple over.
I know, the iTablet is not coming fast enough and I have to carry my MacBook everywhere or else make do with an iPhone. Why should I put up with these hardships? That should be worth $5million. Anyone want to join in with me?
... Well, the point is that Apple and AT&T are selling the iPhone with MMS as a feature. Said feature is inoperative. Selling an item to consumers, claiming it will perform a certain way, when in actuality it won't, is illegal in the US. Sounds like a valid lawsuit to me, but IANAL. ...
You are misrepresenting things here, seemingly based on some kind of xenophobia.
The facts are that the iPhone *is* being sold with MMS as a feature, but MMS *is* available in every country they sell it in except one. In that country, they said it would come "later in the summer."
There is no misdirection here, no lies have been told, and no feature is "inoperative." In one country, out of all the countries that sell the iPhone, the *implementation* of the feature has been delayed, which was announced previous to them selling the feature in that country.
These people only have a case if the feature doesn't arrive in the next month or so, and even then, it's a matter of a delay in implementing a service, not an "inoperative feature."
Well, Apple's web site does say, "Messages Send text, photos, videos, and more." without any indication associated with that text that such support may be conditional on anything. The fine print of "MMS support from AT&T coming in late summer," is on the other side of the page, easy to overlook (I almost didn't see it and I was looking for it), hard to read (gray on gray), and not really associated with the much larger text touting the feature in any way. Most consumers don't follow "announcements", just advertising, and even though this is completely AT&Ts fault, the limitation should be clearer in Apple's marketing.
The plaintiffs may not win, but the suit probably does not merit the label frivolous. I think it would be very easy for someone to look at the marketing information on the web site and not be aware of limitations.
EDIT: I would also point out that the way the iPhone is most frequently sold would make it unlikely that any confusion created in consumers by the web site marketing would be dispelled during the purchase. The scenario would essentially be: Consumer sees information on Apple web site about new iPhone, overlooking the gray on gray fine print not associated with the marketing text. Consumer goes to Apple store to purchase iPhone. Purchase is made from Apple employee using handheld POS device and no mention of this limitation is made by Apple employee. The calling plan information provided to the consumer at the store also does not make clear this limitation. (Since this is typically either the screen of the handheld device or a little card with minimal information.) Consumer completes transaction and commits to 2 year AT&T contract with the expectation of MMS support, only to be unable to send MMS and told by AT&T (and/or Apple) that they don't support that yet.
After which the lawyers should be refferred for disbarment. I mean really if they can't understand the phrase "late summer" then they have no business practicing law. It is very clear what has been advertised in this case, no reasonable person could argue otherwise.
It would be a different ball game if this was the dead of winter and 2010. It is not however, at best it is mid summer. I don't see how either company could be held liable for something they clearly said wouldn't be coming yet.
In any event it is fairly stupid to be seen getting worked up over what is essentially obsolete technology. This makes about as much sense as somebody asking for security updates for their Apple 2. In the end it just looks like another sleazy grab for money. Unfortunately our system has gotten out of hand due to the lack of enforced balance with punitive policies for cases such as these.
Class action lawsuits have their place in the world (well the USA), but there has to be checks and balances. Especially considering that the vast majority of these actions do absolutely nothing for members of the class. The best thing that could happen here is for the judge to take a quick look at the advertising and then the calendar, from which he/she can make the decision to kick the idiots out of the court room. After which maybe a fine could be applied for wasting the courts time. This issue is all about time and right now is not the time to address features advertised to come in the late summer.
It almost makes me well up with tears, to think that somebody actually cares THIS much about MMS, to not only make up a scenario that doesn't exist (false advert), and then try to prosecute it....over MMS on a phone.
Do these people have any idea what's been happening in this country with Flu fear mongering? Anti Second Amendment Propaganda? HEALTHCARE!!!!!
I literally want to weep at the idea that someone could, in these times, find this important. Makes me so sick.
So true....
Everyone knew I was not coming out yet......still a bummer though. \
MMS isn't included in your monthly bill anyhow, so you are not paying for "features" you do not have now.
In my opinion we are paying for MMS each month. Or atleast for picture messaging. If you look online at your data plan and messaging plan one of them says the plan includes unlimited data text and pictures messaging.
I dont agree with the class action case for misleading customers. But i wouldnt be opposed to one takin action against not providing services that your service plan say you have.
The world is moving so fast that there's no point not to be using email. SMS, MMS aren't worth the price you pay. Some will say they like the push notification. I say, it won't matter next year. Some say, but I need it now. I say, How the hell did you make it through the 80's?
But, since we have Smart Phones how are those SMS + MMS better than email, which is much more widely used, and is more flexible!?!
Can SMS + MMS messages be offloaded to computer, and shared as easily as email?
iChat, on iPhone or any other device, during a meeting etc. - that might be easier than email, but a Chat via SMS + MMS, that seems less practical, to me, particularly if a "thread" can't be archived on the computer and easily shared various ways!
A friend once told me that his kids were using SMS, so that they don't eat up Cell Phone minutes! Let's say same goes for MMS. But, that's for kids, who don't care about archiving, and they are mostly on the run! Adults need more industrial strength tools, particularly when doing business, right? The exceptions could be: "Honey, please grab some milk on the way home!" which might not require archiving, unless one needs an alibi!
Can't wait for someone to explain that SMS+MMS vs.Email advantage to me!
they did say they'd have mms by the end of summer, right? so about five more weeks? tick-tock, at&t, tick-tock.
i wouldn't mind seeing a suit against them for the 'unlimited' data plan, however. not because i can't tether my phone, but because i can't download over 3g apps that are larger than a certain size (what is it, 10MB?). what's up with that? if an app is over the limit it has to be downloaded over wifi? undoubtedly some more fine print i didn't read.
(Click on the "Messages" icon to view the marketing on SMS/MMS.)
Unless the consumer "digs around" they aren't going to see the disclaimer you posted. Again, it's AT&Ts fault that this isn't available yet, but Apple's marketing seem to have designed their web content to avoid drawing any attention to the limitation.
Well, you are paying for each month. You're not getting a discount even though they're not providing one of the advertised features.
No, you'te not. Since you have to pay extra for sending text messages, I assume you'll also pay extra for MMS. So unless you have a separate line on your bill for MMS messages, you aren't paying for it.
The lawsuit isn't about paying for features you didn't get. It's about false advertising. As such, the central question will likely be if Apple did enough to warn customers that MMS was to be delivered at a later date. Everything I've seen includes that disclaimer. So is this another case of the customer being too lazy to read the clearly spelled out footnotes and is now filing a lawsuit because of their own incompetence? At what point are people going to be held responsible for their own negligence?
Comments
but MMS? give me a break. i bet Apple is extremely pissed that this feature is left out. im really beginning to dislike AT&T.
I can send evidence of the first MMS I sent on the day that Apple delivered the OS 3.0 update, just as Apple said it would.
Does it matter that I'm in Australia?
For this one the ball is squarely in AT&T's court.
Apple have delivered the feature, the capability and the international community is using it. AT&T have not implemented it yet. It is there problem, not Apple's.
Clearly people cannot read. "Coming Soon" must have some other legal definition that I'm not aware of.
If these cases are not immediately thrown out, I'll have literally no remaining faith in the legal system of the U.S.
Therefore the feature is not advertised as available in the U.S.
Marketing a feature and then not delivering is false advertisement.
*takes off fanboy hat*
Well, the point is that Apple and AT&T are selling the iPhone with MMS as a feature. Said feature is inoperative. Selling an item to consumers, claiming it will perform a certain way, when in actuality it won't, is illegal in the US. Sounds like a valid lawsuit to me, but IANAL.
Apple have delivered the feature and it operates. The fact that AT&T don't have the technical know how to flip a switch is not apples problem.
Why the heck is AT&T dragging their feet on this? Apple has done it's part by providing the 3.0 update, though they should never use MMS as a selling point if the network won't support it because of the above. But WTF is AT&T's problem? Just freaking enable MMS -- there's no valid technical reason not to. (What, it'll cause high network load? I thought you guys had the best 3G network EVAR?)
Agree 100%. Apple should not be included in the law suit, not there problem. What kind of Law Firms does the US have?
Well, you are paying for each month. You're not getting a discount even though they're not providing one of the advertised features.
MMS isn't included in your monthly bill anyhow, so you are not paying for "features" you do not have now.
"Skateboard Ad"
"Copy and Paste"
Wow, now you can sue for not delivering features fast enough. What a crazy world we live in.
Indeed. And Apple have delivered their side, as it works in other countries, so how it can include Apple is beyond me. Apple put in a disclaimer in the US adverts saying late summer - some people don't appear to understand that summer ends in mid September.
Do these people have any idea what's been happening in this country with Flu fear mongering? Anti Second Amendment Propaganda? HEALTHCARE!!!!!
I literally want to weep at the idea that someone could, in these times, find this important. Makes me so sick.
These people are trying to sue because they purchased blue sky. To friggin bad folks. Caveat Emptor.
I love my 3GS, hate AT$T and who really cares about MMS anyway?!?
I know, the iTablet is not coming fast enough and I have to carry my MacBook everywhere or else make do with an iPhone. Why should I put up with these hardships? That should be worth $5million. Anyone want to join in with me?
... Well, the point is that Apple and AT&T are selling the iPhone with MMS as a feature. Said feature is inoperative. Selling an item to consumers, claiming it will perform a certain way, when in actuality it won't, is illegal in the US. Sounds like a valid lawsuit to me, but IANAL. ...
You are misrepresenting things here, seemingly based on some kind of xenophobia.
The facts are that the iPhone *is* being sold with MMS as a feature, but MMS *is* available in every country they sell it in except one. In that country, they said it would come "later in the summer."
There is no misdirection here, no lies have been told, and no feature is "inoperative." In one country, out of all the countries that sell the iPhone, the *implementation* of the feature has been delayed, which was announced previous to them selling the feature in that country.
These people only have a case if the feature doesn't arrive in the next month or so, and even then, it's a matter of a delay in implementing a service, not an "inoperative feature."
The plaintiffs may not win, but the suit probably does not merit the label frivolous. I think it would be very easy for someone to look at the marketing information on the web site and not be aware of limitations.
EDIT: I would also point out that the way the iPhone is most frequently sold would make it unlikely that any confusion created in consumers by the web site marketing would be dispelled during the purchase. The scenario would essentially be: Consumer sees information on Apple web site about new iPhone, overlooking the gray on gray fine print not associated with the marketing text. Consumer goes to Apple store to purchase iPhone. Purchase is made from Apple employee using handheld POS device and no mention of this limitation is made by Apple employee. The calling plan information provided to the consumer at the store also does not make clear this limitation. (Since this is typically either the screen of the handheld device or a little card with minimal information.) Consumer completes transaction and commits to 2 year AT&T contract with the expectation of MMS support, only to be unable to send MMS and told by AT&T (and/or Apple) that they don't support that yet.
It would be a different ball game if this was the dead of winter and 2010. It is not however, at best it is mid summer. I don't see how either company could be held liable for something they clearly said wouldn't be coming yet.
In any event it is fairly stupid to be seen getting worked up over what is essentially obsolete technology. This makes about as much sense as somebody asking for security updates for their Apple 2. In the end it just looks like another sleazy grab for money. Unfortunately our system has gotten out of hand due to the lack of enforced balance with punitive policies for cases such as these.
Class action lawsuits have their place in the world (well the USA), but there has to be checks and balances. Especially considering that the vast majority of these actions do absolutely nothing for members of the class. The best thing that could happen here is for the judge to take a quick look at the advertising and then the calendar, from which he/she can make the decision to kick the idiots out of the court room. After which maybe a fine could be applied for wasting the courts time. This issue is all about time and right now is not the time to address features advertised to come in the late summer.
Dave
It almost makes me well up with tears, to think that somebody actually cares THIS much about MMS, to not only make up a scenario that doesn't exist (false advert), and then try to prosecute it....over MMS on a phone.
Do these people have any idea what's been happening in this country with Flu fear mongering? Anti Second Amendment Propaganda? HEALTHCARE!!!!!
I literally want to weep at the idea that someone could, in these times, find this important. Makes me so sick.
So true....
Everyone knew I was not coming out yet......still a bummer though.
MMS isn't included in your monthly bill anyhow, so you are not paying for "features" you do not have now.
In my opinion we are paying for MMS each month. Or atleast for picture messaging. If you look online at your data plan and messaging plan one of them says the plan includes unlimited data text and pictures messaging.
I dont agree with the class action case for misleading customers. But i wouldnt be opposed to one takin action against not providing services that your service plan say you have.
SMS = text only
MMS - text + audio and or video attachment?
But, since we have Smart Phones how are those SMS + MMS better than email, which is much more widely used, and is more flexible!?!
Can SMS + MMS messages be offloaded to computer, and shared as easily as email?
iChat, on iPhone or any other device, during a meeting etc. - that might be easier than email, but a Chat via SMS + MMS, that seems less practical, to me, particularly if a "thread" can't be archived on the computer and easily shared various ways!
A friend once told me that his kids were using SMS, so that they don't eat up Cell Phone minutes! Let's say same goes for MMS. But, that's for kids, who don't care about archiving, and they are mostly on the run! Adults need more industrial strength tools, particularly when doing business, right? The exceptions could be: "Honey, please grab some milk on the way home!" which might not require archiving, unless one needs an alibi
Can't wait for someone to explain that SMS+MMS vs.Email advantage to me!
TIA!!!!
Some features, applications, and services are not available in all areas. See your carrier for details.
Some applications are not available in all areas. Application availability and pricing are subject to change.
Apple's disclaimer pretty much covers this issue.
i wouldn't mind seeing a suit against them for the 'unlimited' data plan, however. not because i can't tether my phone, but because i can't download over 3g apps that are larger than a certain size (what is it, 10MB?). what's up with that? if an app is over the limit it has to be downloaded over wifi? undoubtedly some more fine print i didn't read.
MMS support from AT&T coming in late summer. MMS is not supported on first-generation iPhone.
Some features, applications, and services are not available in all areas. See your carrier for details.
Some applications are not available in all areas. Application availability and pricing are subject to change.
Apple's disclaimer pretty much covers this issue.
I don't think it does. This is what most consumers will see:
http://www.apple.com/iphone/
(Click on the "Messages" icon to view the marketing on SMS/MMS.)
Unless the consumer "digs around" they aren't going to see the disclaimer you posted. Again, it's AT&Ts fault that this isn't available yet, but Apple's marketing seem to have designed their web content to avoid drawing any attention to the limitation.
Well, you are paying for each month. You're not getting a discount even though they're not providing one of the advertised features.
No, you'te not. Since you have to pay extra for sending text messages, I assume you'll also pay extra for MMS. So unless you have a separate line on your bill for MMS messages, you aren't paying for it.
The lawsuit isn't about paying for features you didn't get. It's about false advertising. As such, the central question will likely be if Apple did enough to warn customers that MMS was to be delivered at a later date. Everything I've seen includes that disclaimer. So is this another case of the customer being too lazy to read the clearly spelled out footnotes and is now filing a lawsuit because of their own incompetence? At what point are people going to be held responsible for their own negligence?