It's months old, as the 3 was being sold right up till the release of the 4 (as many others posted) I TOO was CHUGGING the Apple Kool-Aid out of school, and was in the process of coming back (now as a 40 year old) when I purchased my iPhone 2 years ago.
But it was this engineered "catch 22" that Apple put into motion that really woke me up and made me realized the control their devices have (or attempt to have) over it's users. It's 2 years old, so what? I like it, and don't want to buy something new right now- so F*CK you, and F*UCK apple. F*UCK itunes and how many computers I can put my music on.
But now, I'm motivated, and guess what? I don't negotiate with terrorists either. So come November 21, when the shit service contract from AT&T expires on this now VERY shitty phone, I roll into the local Sprint office and buy a new Evo. Is it a better phone? I don't give a rip- but I'm not being held hostage by a F*cking electronic devices company.
And you know what else? The suit is legit, and sometime in 2017, I'll get a check in the mail for .17 cents.
good luck with that, you'll probably be in a wheelchair by then or just hospital. if you are half as annoying in real life as you are in this forum then someone is really going to enjoy kicking the shit out of you before too long.
My Verizon contract expired in November of '09 and I came back to AT&T only because of the iphone. I read the early reviews of OS4 and it sounded like I would not get folders and a couple other features. I installed the update and was amazed by the lag in starting apps and using the keyboard, especially in texting. Then Jobs commented on how slow the 3G was in testing... How about supporting a device at least while it's under warranty? According to AT&T, I am eligible for an upgrade in June of 2011. The only way that I will spend my money with Apple and AT&T is if they address this problem directly or Sprint may be my way of protesting. I have been an Apple computer user since 1993 and I love their products but this felt rather malicious on their part.
Angry? No i'm F U C K I N G pissed. So pissed in fact that I went through the hassle of signing up for this shit site to maybe help some of you retards see through the Kool-aid inebriation you all have in common. (fat chance- hu?)
The only thing you've motivated me to do is update my ignore list. Buh-bye popa-troll.
Oh crap! I gotta go get me a new iMac, my current one is 3 years old!
Funny... No, I mean, if you buy an iPhone mid-cycle, and you're up for an upgrade every 2 years, why should your phone by obsolete before the phone is up for upgrade? 3 years of support solves this issue.
Out of curiosity, has MS ever been sued for selling a new version of Windows that was deemed “acceptable” by the HCL and spec sheet, but subsequently made it run slower than the previous version of Windows? For instance, everyone that upgraded from WinXP to Vista?
Oh by the way boys this has nothing to do with the age of the 3G. Apple advised that 4.0 was suitable for the 3G when clearly it wasn't. This is not debatable. Second they waited far to long to correct the problem.
Again, they had to write and test the update before they could release it. And, again, it's quite odd that they are being sued after they corrected the issue.
Out of curiosity, has MS ever been sued for selling a new version of Windows that was deemed ?acceptable? by the HCL and spec sheet, but subsequently made it run slower than the previous version of Windows? For instance, everyone that upgraded from WinXP to Vista?
Did they purposely cripple something to cause someone to purchase new hardware? That's what I believe the issue at hand. Just because you release an inferior product does not make you liable. But, if you do so purposely to cause your user base to have to purchase a new version of your product, that's another. The case claims that Apple is forcing iPhone upgrades by making older ones unnecessarily a slug.
Funny... No, I mean, if you buy an iPhone mid-cycle, and you're up for an upgrade every 2 years, why should your phone by obsolete before the phone is up for upgrade? 3 years of support solves this issue.
If by obsolete you mean its production, then why do you expect ever CE you own to be produced for at least 3 years from the time you buy it? Are companies suppose to hinder their production cycles and sales because you finally bought their product?
If by obsolete you mean its usage, then why do think that it can?t be used just because a newer model has arrived. New CE arrives all the time. Do people get pissed when a slightly bigger TV comes to market the month after they bought theres or are they happy with the device they currently have? If it?s the former, I?m glad I don?t know such people.
The fact is, Apple supports their devices longer than anyone else in the handset market so if people are going to bitch about the inevitable issues with updating older HW with features that require more resources then I say Apple should tell everyone to sod off and pul the updates to the last two devices, only.
Did they purposely cripple something to cause someone to purchase new hardware? That's what I believe the issue at hand. Just because you release an inferior product does not make you liable. But, if you do so purposely to cause your user base to have to purchase a new version of your product, that's another. The case claims that Apple is forcing iPhone upgrades by making older ones unnecessarily a slug.
So you?re claiming that Apple purposely wrote iOS 4.0 for the iPhone 3G to cripple a portion (but not all) of the devices. You can think Apple, a multi-bilion dollar company and always in the public and pundit?s eyes over the little issue, would purposely do this INSTEAD OF simply saying that they aren?t going to update the iPhone 3G at all because iOS 4.0 requires HW that they iPhone 3G doesn?t have, thus preventing any lawsuit from happening because they aren?t required to nor have promised any such updates cycles to the buyer, and also preventing them from taking the time to write this software to cripple a percentage of the iPhone 3Gs.
You do realize that Apple?s headquarters are in Cupertino, and not in some island volcano with skull carved into the side, right? Take the tinfoil hat off, call your doctor and have him adjust your meds.
If by obsolete you mean its production, then why do you expect ever CE you own to be produced for at least 3 years from the time you buy it? Are companies suppose to hinder their production cycles and sales because you finally bought their product?
No, I mean support: replacement parts (I believe 5 years is law), software support, etc. Apple still pushes the iPhone 3G the day before the launch of the 3GS. They still get your money. That money should include support as long as you're not eligible for upgrade, which is 2 years under just about every carrier. That means, from the time the phone was originally released, until your 2 year contract is up, that's a total of about 3 years. OS upgrades, etc. should be good for that length of time.
Quote:
If by obsolete you mean its usage, then why do think that it can?t be used just because a newer model has arrived. New CE arrives all the time. Do people get pissed when a slightly bigger TV comes to market the month after they bought theres or are they happy with the device they currently have? If it?s the former, I?m glad I don?t know such people.
You are bending and twisting this as much as possible to defend Steve and Apple, aren't you? You're not one of those Apple users that have blinders on, are you? This should include Android, as well. This shouldn't be something that's unique to Apple. I have a feeling that lawsuit will be coming, as well. People who buy smartphones with an old version of Android, with no upgrade potential at all to a newer version, and find it difficult or nearly impossible to actually put any apps on it at all, should sue and stop this madness.
Again, I stand by the fact that Apple and all smartphone manufacturers should support their phones for 3 years minimum.
Quote:
The fact is, Apple supports their devices longer than anyone else in the handset market so if people are going to bitch about the inevitable issues with updating older HW with features that require more resources then I say Apple should tell everyone to sod off and pul the updates to the last two devices, only.
Another fanboy... Sad... Like I said, it should be across all manufacturers. You pay a lot of money for a smartphone, now have a huge penalty for ending your contract early, and wireless carrier rates aren't cheap, either. You should expect 3 years from the date of the original release of the product, to when it stops being supported. After that, you're on your own.
So you?re claiming that Apple purposely wrote iOS 4.0 for the iPhone 3G to cripple a portion (but not all) of the devices. You can think Apple, a multi-bilion dollar company and always in the public and pundit?s eyes over the little issue, would purposely do this INSTEAD OF simply saying that they aren?t going to update the iPhone 3G at all because iOS 4.0 requires HW that they iPhone 3G doesn?t have, thus preventing any lawsuit from happening because they aren?t required to nor have promised any such updates cycles to the buyer, and also preventing them from taking the time to write this software to cripple a percentage of the iPhone 3Gs.
You do realize that Apple?s headquarters are in Cupertino, and not in some island volcano with skull carved into the side, right? Take the tinfoil hat off, call your doctor and have him adjust your meds.
No, I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply making an example of the difference between coming out with an inferior product and purposely outdating something to force upgrades, which I believe the lawsuit is about.
You seriously have some reading comprehension deficiencies, don't you? I didn't make any accusations toward Apple at all.
Did they purposely cripple something to cause someone to purchase new hardware? That's what I believe the issue at hand. Just because you release an inferior product does not make you liable. But, if you do so purposely to cause your user base to have to purchase a new version of your product, that's another. The case claims that Apple is forcing iPhone upgrades by making older ones unnecessarily a slug.
This claim is BS.
Based on that logic one can argue that MS crippled Vista because they wanted people to pay for the next Windows OS (Windows 7)
Did Apple cripple every iPhone 3G? 50%? 10%? how many do they need cripple to support this theory? and how many were actually crippled?
When you work with software, specially something as complex as an OS, shit happens. The majority of iPhone owners eventually upgrade to the newer version.
Based on that logic one can argue that MS crippled Vista because they wanted people to pay for the next Windows OS (Windows 7)
Did Apple cripple every iPhone 3G? 50%? 10%? how many do they need cripple to support this theory? and how many were actually crippled?
When you work with software, specially something as complex as an OS, shit happens. The majority of iPhone owners eventually upgrade to the newer version.
Look... I'm not claiming Apple is guilty of anything. The lawsuit, I believe, is that Apple purposely crippled the 3G, after claiming it was supported with the new OS release, to force users to purchase a new iPhone by making the 3G virtually useless. That's the lawsuit. I'm simply arguing that they may have merit, and you need to let the evidence be brought forth and presented before passing judgment. Too many of you people are fanatical and Apple simply can't do any wrong. You're no better than the Microsoft zealots that defend them.
at least, a way to go back to iOS3 shall be provided by Apple if allowing iPhone3G to go iOS4 knowing it'll "iBrick" it.
Good!
The statements in the suit are hyperbolic. The phone isn't bricked. it works, crappy but it works. And that is due to the lower hardware, something Apple was very open about when they announced 4.0.
The 'bug' in this case is that Apple made two bad assumptions. The first was that 3g owners would upgrade their hardware. I mean why wouldn't you. The 4 is so much better than the 3g. The second assumption is that folks wouldn't upgrade their software because they would be smart enough to want to avoid any potential issues.
What Apple should have done is blocked the 3g from upgrading to iOS 4 at all. But they trusted their users to be smart and not need Big Daddy telling them to look both ways before running out in the street. Oops.
As for this suit. The lawyers are going to have to prove that these issues affected a majority of the phones. Good luck with that. Cause even combing all the forums they can find, they might find a couple of thousand out of a few million phones sold. The folks that didn't upgrade, or didn't have issues, rather come and post about it. So they can't say either way if there were issues or not for those folks.
Also, they have to prove that Apple knew this would happen to everyone and did it to force folks to buy a new phone. But honestly does anyone actually believe they will find that smoking gun. Doubt it.
The statements in the suit are hyperbolic. The phone isn't bricked. it works, crappy but it works. And that is due to the lower hardware, something Apple was very open about when they announced 4.0.
The 'bug' in this case is that Apple made two bad assumptions. The first was that 3g owners would upgrade their hardware. I mean why wouldn't you. The 4 is so much better than the 3g. The second assumption is that folks wouldn't upgrade their software because they would be smart enough to want to avoid any potential issues.
What Apple should have done is blocked the 3g from upgrading to iOS 4 at all. But they trusted their users to be smart and not need Big Daddy telling them to look both ways before running out in the street. Oops.
Except that your second assumption isn't valid since Apple said iOS 4 was compatible with the 3G. They went further and explained that some functionality wouldn't be available (mutitasking, background pictures) because the hardware was constrained. This would mean, to any reasonable person, that Apple expected 3G users to update to iOS 4.
Everyone always says Apple's experience is superior because they control it top to bottom. Since the control the hardware and the software, they are the only source to rely on for compatibility. You can insult people all you like for having upgraded, but all they did was trust Apple.
No, I mean support: replacement parts (I believe 5 years is law), software support, etc.
Oh yeah?! Prove it! Prove that Apple is required to offer rich updates to their devices for 5 years. I think you have misunderstood what “support” means just as you’ve misunderstood what “obsolete” means.
Quote:
That money should include support as long as you're not eligible for upgrade, which is 2 years under just about every carrier. That means, from the time the phone was originally released, until your 2 year contract is up, that's a total of about 3 years. OS upgrades, etc. should be good for that length of time.
Again, Apple has no requirement to give you rich OS updates. There is no correlation between the length of a carriers’ contract and the vendor’s need to issue rich updates to handsets.
Quote:
You are bending and twisting this as much as possible to defend Steve and Apple, aren't you?
I used the first the two usage of obsolete. The others put you in an even less flattering light.
To restate again, the iPhone 3G worked before the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 arrived, and it still works after that. If you hate companies releasing new products thereby hurting your feelings because you no longer have the newest toy then you shouldn’t ever buy anything ever again or you will always end up disappointed.
Quote:
Again, I stand by the fact that Apple and all smartphone manufacturers should support their phones for 3 years minimum.
Your self-imposed entitlemnet is not a requirement under the law.
Quote:
You pay a lot of money for a smartphone, now have a huge penalty for ending your contract early, and wireless carrier rates aren't cheap, either. You should expect 3 years from the date of the original release of the product, to when it stops being supported. After that, you're on your own.
You should expect what is actually promised instead of making up laws that you think sound good and then getting upset when they don’t go as planned, but this doesn’t get into your previous claims of Apple purposely wasting time, effort and money to cripple the iPhone 3G so people would be forced to buy the iPhone 4 that they couldn’t keep on the shelves. You still haven’t answered how you think Apple would get away with this diabolical plan. Also, how exactly was Apple going to prevent these no unhappy iPhone customers with “bricked” phones from not buying a competitors phone?
Apple offering these updates each year at the same time and supporting 3 years of devices isn’t some altruistic service. Apple knows they are the only ones that can offer this service because of their single model YoY design. No other vendor can match that, but if you want to think it’s a huge conspiracy theory go right ahead. I won’t shoot death ray to your brain… but you should wear your tinfoil hat, just in case.
It would probably hold more water if apple DID NOT support iPhone 3G cause then users would totally have to upgrade to get a taste of iOS 4. Dunno if this is just a case of spoilt consumers or greedy lawyers, but either way apple bears the brunt.
Exactly. If Apple really wanted to force iPhone 3G users to upgrade, they could have said, "OK, iOS 4 is only available on the iPhone 4."
I find it amusing that people tend to read conspiracies into what could simply be a case of incompetency. Apple clearly dropped the ball for owners of the iPhone 3G. What's more likely, that it's part of a evil upgrade strategy, or because they didn't do enough testing and optimization on the older hardware? There are plenty of people who think the same of their governments, so I guess it's cultural aftermath of the Watergate incident. That, and high profile cover-ups by large corporations over misdeeds
Comments
It's months old, as the 3 was being sold right up till the release of the 4 (as many others posted) I TOO was CHUGGING the Apple Kool-Aid out of school, and was in the process of coming back (now as a 40 year old) when I purchased my iPhone 2 years ago.
But it was this engineered "catch 22" that Apple put into motion that really woke me up and made me realized the control their devices have (or attempt to have) over it's users. It's 2 years old, so what? I like it, and don't want to buy something new right now- so F*CK you, and F*UCK apple. F*UCK itunes and how many computers I can put my music on.
But now, I'm motivated, and guess what? I don't negotiate with terrorists either. So come November 21, when the shit service contract from AT&T expires on this now VERY shitty phone, I roll into the local Sprint office and buy a new Evo. Is it a better phone? I don't give a rip- but I'm not being held hostage by a F*cking electronic devices company.
And you know what else? The suit is legit, and sometime in 2017, I'll get a check in the mail for .17 cents.
good luck with that, you'll probably be in a wheelchair by then or just hospital. if you are half as annoying in real life as you are in this forum then someone is really going to enjoy kicking the shit out of you before too long.
Angry? No i'm F U C K I N G pissed. So pissed in fact that I went through the hassle of signing up for this shit site to maybe help some of you retards see through the Kool-aid inebriation you all have in common. (fat chance- hu?)
The only thing you've motivated me to do is update my ignore list. Buh-bye popa-troll.
This week's election results + this story = 2 more steps on the road to the american idiocracy. Are we there yet?
Oh, we've been there for the past 30 years.
Oh crap! I gotta go get me a new iMac, my current one is 3 years old!
Funny... No, I mean, if you buy an iPhone mid-cycle, and you're up for an upgrade every 2 years, why should your phone by obsolete before the phone is up for upgrade? 3 years of support solves this issue.
Oh by the way boys this has nothing to do with the age of the 3G. Apple advised that 4.0 was suitable for the 3G when clearly it wasn't. This is not debatable. Second they waited far to long to correct the problem.
Again, they had to write and test the update before they could release it. And, again, it's quite odd that they are being sued after they corrected the issue.
Out of curiosity, has MS ever been sued for selling a new version of Windows that was deemed ?acceptable? by the HCL and spec sheet, but subsequently made it run slower than the previous version of Windows? For instance, everyone that upgraded from WinXP to Vista?
Did they purposely cripple something to cause someone to purchase new hardware? That's what I believe the issue at hand. Just because you release an inferior product does not make you liable. But, if you do so purposely to cause your user base to have to purchase a new version of your product, that's another. The case claims that Apple is forcing iPhone upgrades by making older ones unnecessarily a slug.
Funny... No, I mean, if you buy an iPhone mid-cycle, and you're up for an upgrade every 2 years, why should your phone by obsolete before the phone is up for upgrade? 3 years of support solves this issue.
If by obsolete you mean its production, then why do you expect ever CE you own to be produced for at least 3 years from the time you buy it? Are companies suppose to hinder their production cycles and sales because you finally bought their product?
If by obsolete you mean its usage, then why do think that it can?t be used just because a newer model has arrived. New CE arrives all the time. Do people get pissed when a slightly bigger TV comes to market the month after they bought theres or are they happy with the device they currently have? If it?s the former, I?m glad I don?t know such people.
The fact is, Apple supports their devices longer than anyone else in the handset market so if people are going to bitch about the inevitable issues with updating older HW with features that require more resources then I say Apple should tell everyone to sod off and pul the updates to the last two devices, only.
You're not actually suppose to EAT the apple, it's made of resin of course it tastes terrible.
Did they purposely cripple something to cause someone to purchase new hardware? That's what I believe the issue at hand. Just because you release an inferior product does not make you liable. But, if you do so purposely to cause your user base to have to purchase a new version of your product, that's another. The case claims that Apple is forcing iPhone upgrades by making older ones unnecessarily a slug.
So you?re claiming that Apple purposely wrote iOS 4.0 for the iPhone 3G to cripple a portion (but not all) of the devices. You can think Apple, a multi-bilion dollar company and always in the public and pundit?s eyes over the little issue, would purposely do this INSTEAD OF simply saying that they aren?t going to update the iPhone 3G at all because iOS 4.0 requires HW that they iPhone 3G doesn?t have, thus preventing any lawsuit from happening because they aren?t required to nor have promised any such updates cycles to the buyer, and also preventing them from taking the time to write this software to cripple a percentage of the iPhone 3Gs.
You do realize that Apple?s headquarters are in Cupertino, and not in some island volcano with skull carved into the side, right? Take the tinfoil hat off, call your doctor and have him adjust your meds.
If by obsolete you mean its production, then why do you expect ever CE you own to be produced for at least 3 years from the time you buy it? Are companies suppose to hinder their production cycles and sales because you finally bought their product?
No, I mean support: replacement parts (I believe 5 years is law), software support, etc. Apple still pushes the iPhone 3G the day before the launch of the 3GS. They still get your money. That money should include support as long as you're not eligible for upgrade, which is 2 years under just about every carrier. That means, from the time the phone was originally released, until your 2 year contract is up, that's a total of about 3 years. OS upgrades, etc. should be good for that length of time.
If by obsolete you mean its usage, then why do think that it can?t be used just because a newer model has arrived. New CE arrives all the time. Do people get pissed when a slightly bigger TV comes to market the month after they bought theres or are they happy with the device they currently have? If it?s the former, I?m glad I don?t know such people.
You are bending and twisting this as much as possible to defend Steve and Apple, aren't you? You're not one of those Apple users that have blinders on, are you? This should include Android, as well. This shouldn't be something that's unique to Apple. I have a feeling that lawsuit will be coming, as well. People who buy smartphones with an old version of Android, with no upgrade potential at all to a newer version, and find it difficult or nearly impossible to actually put any apps on it at all, should sue and stop this madness.
Again, I stand by the fact that Apple and all smartphone manufacturers should support their phones for 3 years minimum.
The fact is, Apple supports their devices longer than anyone else in the handset market so if people are going to bitch about the inevitable issues with updating older HW with features that require more resources then I say Apple should tell everyone to sod off and pul the updates to the last two devices, only.
Another fanboy... Sad... Like I said, it should be across all manufacturers. You pay a lot of money for a smartphone, now have a huge penalty for ending your contract early, and wireless carrier rates aren't cheap, either. You should expect 3 years from the date of the original release of the product, to when it stops being supported. After that, you're on your own.
So you?re claiming that Apple purposely wrote iOS 4.0 for the iPhone 3G to cripple a portion (but not all) of the devices. You can think Apple, a multi-bilion dollar company and always in the public and pundit?s eyes over the little issue, would purposely do this INSTEAD OF simply saying that they aren?t going to update the iPhone 3G at all because iOS 4.0 requires HW that they iPhone 3G doesn?t have, thus preventing any lawsuit from happening because they aren?t required to nor have promised any such updates cycles to the buyer, and also preventing them from taking the time to write this software to cripple a percentage of the iPhone 3Gs.
You do realize that Apple?s headquarters are in Cupertino, and not in some island volcano with skull carved into the side, right? Take the tinfoil hat off, call your doctor and have him adjust your meds.
No, I'm not claiming anything. I'm simply making an example of the difference between coming out with an inferior product and purposely outdating something to force upgrades, which I believe the lawsuit is about.
You seriously have some reading comprehension deficiencies, don't you? I didn't make any accusations toward Apple at all.
Did they purposely cripple something to cause someone to purchase new hardware? That's what I believe the issue at hand. Just because you release an inferior product does not make you liable. But, if you do so purposely to cause your user base to have to purchase a new version of your product, that's another. The case claims that Apple is forcing iPhone upgrades by making older ones unnecessarily a slug.
This claim is BS.
Based on that logic one can argue that MS crippled Vista because they wanted people to pay for the next Windows OS (Windows 7)
Did Apple cripple every iPhone 3G? 50%? 10%? how many do they need cripple to support this theory? and how many were actually crippled?
When you work with software, specially something as complex as an OS, shit happens. The majority of iPhone owners eventually upgrade to the newer version.
This claim is BS.
Based on that logic one can argue that MS crippled Vista because they wanted people to pay for the next Windows OS (Windows 7)
Did Apple cripple every iPhone 3G? 50%? 10%? how many do they need cripple to support this theory? and how many were actually crippled?
When you work with software, specially something as complex as an OS, shit happens. The majority of iPhone owners eventually upgrade to the newer version.
Look... I'm not claiming Apple is guilty of anything. The lawsuit, I believe, is that Apple purposely crippled the 3G, after claiming it was supported with the new OS release, to force users to purchase a new iPhone by making the 3G virtually useless. That's the lawsuit. I'm simply arguing that they may have merit, and you need to let the evidence be brought forth and presented before passing judgment. Too many of you people are fanatical and Apple simply can't do any wrong. You're no better than the Microsoft zealots that defend them.
at least, a way to go back to iOS3 shall be provided by Apple if allowing iPhone3G to go iOS4 knowing it'll "iBrick" it.
Good!
The statements in the suit are hyperbolic. The phone isn't bricked. it works, crappy but it works. And that is due to the lower hardware, something Apple was very open about when they announced 4.0.
The 'bug' in this case is that Apple made two bad assumptions. The first was that 3g owners would upgrade their hardware. I mean why wouldn't you. The 4 is so much better than the 3g. The second assumption is that folks wouldn't upgrade their software because they would be smart enough to want to avoid any potential issues.
What Apple should have done is blocked the 3g from upgrading to iOS 4 at all. But they trusted their users to be smart and not need Big Daddy telling them to look both ways before running out in the street. Oops.
As for this suit. The lawyers are going to have to prove that these issues affected a majority of the phones. Good luck with that. Cause even combing all the forums they can find, they might find a couple of thousand out of a few million phones sold. The folks that didn't upgrade, or didn't have issues, rather come and post about it. So they can't say either way if there were issues or not for those folks.
Also, they have to prove that Apple knew this would happen to everyone and did it to force folks to buy a new phone. But honestly does anyone actually believe they will find that smoking gun. Doubt it.
The statements in the suit are hyperbolic. The phone isn't bricked. it works, crappy but it works. And that is due to the lower hardware, something Apple was very open about when they announced 4.0.
The 'bug' in this case is that Apple made two bad assumptions. The first was that 3g owners would upgrade their hardware. I mean why wouldn't you. The 4 is so much better than the 3g. The second assumption is that folks wouldn't upgrade their software because they would be smart enough to want to avoid any potential issues.
What Apple should have done is blocked the 3g from upgrading to iOS 4 at all. But they trusted their users to be smart and not need Big Daddy telling them to look both ways before running out in the street. Oops.
Except that your second assumption isn't valid since Apple said iOS 4 was compatible with the 3G. They went further and explained that some functionality wouldn't be available (mutitasking, background pictures) because the hardware was constrained. This would mean, to any reasonable person, that Apple expected 3G users to update to iOS 4.
Everyone always says Apple's experience is superior because they control it top to bottom. Since the control the hardware and the software, they are the only source to rely on for compatibility. You can insult people all you like for having upgraded, but all they did was trust Apple.
No, I mean support: replacement parts (I believe 5 years is law), software support, etc.
Oh yeah?! Prove it! Prove that Apple is required to offer rich updates to their devices for 5 years. I think you have misunderstood what “support” means just as you’ve misunderstood what “obsolete” means.
That money should include support as long as you're not eligible for upgrade, which is 2 years under just about every carrier. That means, from the time the phone was originally released, until your 2 year contract is up, that's a total of about 3 years. OS upgrades, etc. should be good for that length of time.
Again, Apple has no requirement to give you rich OS updates. There is no correlation between the length of a carriers’ contract and the vendor’s need to issue rich updates to handsets.
You are bending and twisting this as much as possible to defend Steve and Apple, aren't you?
I used the first the two usage of obsolete. The others put you in an even less flattering light.
To restate again, the iPhone 3G worked before the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 arrived, and it still works after that. If you hate companies releasing new products thereby hurting your feelings because you no longer have the newest toy then you shouldn’t ever buy anything ever again or you will always end up disappointed.
Again, I stand by the fact that Apple and all smartphone manufacturers should support their phones for 3 years minimum.
Your self-imposed entitlemnet is not a requirement under the law.
You pay a lot of money for a smartphone, now have a huge penalty for ending your contract early, and wireless carrier rates aren't cheap, either. You should expect 3 years from the date of the original release of the product, to when it stops being supported. After that, you're on your own.
You should expect what is actually promised instead of making up laws that you think sound good and then getting upset when they don’t go as planned, but this doesn’t get into your previous claims of Apple purposely wasting time, effort and money to cripple the iPhone 3G so people would be forced to buy the iPhone 4 that they couldn’t keep on the shelves. You still haven’t answered how you think Apple would get away with this diabolical plan. Also, how exactly was Apple going to prevent these no unhappy iPhone customers with “bricked” phones from not buying a competitors phone?
Apple offering these updates each year at the same time and supporting 3 years of devices isn’t some altruistic service. Apple knows they are the only ones that can offer this service because of their single model YoY design. No other vendor can match that, but if you want to think it’s a huge conspiracy theory go right ahead. I won’t shoot death ray to your brain… but you should wear your tinfoil hat, just in case.
This lawsuit just doesn't make any sense.
It would probably hold more water if apple DID NOT support iPhone 3G cause then users would totally have to upgrade to get a taste of iOS 4. Dunno if this is just a case of spoilt consumers or greedy lawyers, but either way apple bears the brunt.
Exactly. If Apple really wanted to force iPhone 3G users to upgrade, they could have said, "OK, iOS 4 is only available on the iPhone 4."
I find it amusing that people tend to read conspiracies into what could simply be a case of incompetency. Apple clearly dropped the ball for owners of the iPhone 3G. What's more likely, that it's part of a evil upgrade strategy, or because they didn't do enough testing and optimization on the older hardware? There are plenty of people who think the same of their governments, so I guess it's cultural aftermath of the Watergate incident. That, and high profile cover-ups by large corporations over misdeeds