The nonexistent people who couldn't be proven to exist as there is nothing to show messages weren't received?
If these potential customers came into existence by using other methods to make contact then there is still a chance they will provide money making opportunities.
Damn man.. you still think this is an imaginary issue?!!
“We recently fixed a server-side iMessage bug which was causing an issue for some users, and we have an additional bug fix in a future software update,” Apple told Re/code in a statement. “For users still experiencing an issue, please contact AppleCare.”
There was a problem and turning off iMessage before erasing the iPhone did not work for some people since this was a server side bug as well. This was a bug that Apple ignored for long time and just now took the necessary steps to fix it. Just because it didn't happen to you that it didn't exist.
...I don't believed they signed out and the system still tried to send messages (blue). I can believe they signed out of one device but not another they may have retained. Still a pile of horse manure.
In this thread: Countless Apple defenders refusing to admit this was a *real* problem.
I've been using Apple products longer than most of you have been alive but even I admit this was a big issue, even if you won't. I have several friends who switched to Android and could not get texts for months. It was not just a "boo hoo" inconvenience, it actually affected their livelihood when they could not be contacted by customers. Apple knew about this problem for years before it implemented a solution. Their attitude was true b*llsh*t on this one and I am glad the judge allowed this to proceed, because they really did wrong here. I cannot fathom why so many of you are belittling what was a true, serious issue.
I'm calling you out: Nobodyy, Maestro64, SpamSandwich, jungmark, Suddenly Newton. You guys are irrational.
Your post demonstrates that you are not in a position to decide what's rational and irrational. What does using Apple products longer than everyone have to do with anything? You know that's one of the oldest rhetorical arguments in these forums, and it always has the opposite effect that you intended. You'd better come correct if you want to "call me out".
Obviously a problem. Apple placed themselves as an intermediary to a public utility, and didn't have an effective handover strategy which meant a number of people were unable to properly use the public utility.
Then they took years to fix it. Open and shut case for negligence.
I might love my Apple products, but I am on the side that Apple screwed up on this one. Yes, they do not guarantee the delivery of messages, but there is an expectation that most of the message will go through. If we were talking 3-6 months for Apple to come up with the fix, I would agree with everyone saying that this is an ambulance chaser or get over yourself. I could even agree with that if we were talking a year, but we are talking 3 years. That was Apple saying F U to anyone who left, and it was this suit that finally forced them to fix the problem. Yes Apple did finally fix the problem, but the case was already filed. It is kind of like expecting the court to drop the speeding ticket because you slowed down after the cop wrote you up.
The burden of proof has nothing to do with a guarantee to receive every text message that is sent to her, all she has to prove is that Apple interfered with her Verizon contract.
1. Was it reasonable for Moore to believe she would get the vast majority of her text messages?
2. If this problem started with iOS 5 (2011) why did Apple wait until this week to put out a tool to deregister your phone?
3. Did Apple make the process unreasonable to get your text messages when switching to another OS?
4. Lucy Koh has this case.
Yeah sorry guys Apple is going to lose this case.
But then they'll win it on appeal, citing courtroom irregularities in the first case.
Maybe I'll get some of that money. My kids don't have a data plan on their iPhones and suffers from the same problem. It work only when they're on wifi.
Obviously a problem. Apple placed themselves as an intermediary to a public utility, and didn't have an effective handover strategy which meant a number of people were unable to properly use the public utility.
Then they took years to fix it. Open and shut case for negligence.
If you don't follow instructions on opting out, the iMessage system will still think you are in. Even then, those customers can contact Apple to get the issue resolved. It's only "negligence" if Apple refuses to help. If taking too long to fix problems is your definition of "negligence" then Microsoft is getting off way too easy for the hundreds of unfixed bugs in their applications over the years.
Obviously a problem. Apple placed themselves as an intermediary to a public utility, and didn't have an effective handover strategy which meant a number of people were unable to properly use the public utility.
Then they took years to fix it. Open and shut case for negligence.
To begin, I think at best you can say Apple placed the iMessaging system as an alternative to the SMS system. Apple isn't offering a service that allows you to cross-send SMS messages to iMessage users, or vice-versa. The iMessage system stands on it's own. The Messages application is a multipurpose program that facilitates using both the iMessage as well as SMS backends. Also, is the SMS system actually classified as a public utility? (I ask because I don't know - but it seems unlikely to me.) And from a legal standpoint (no, IANAL) is the concept of negligence even satisfied in this situation?
Here's the problem as I see it (correct me where I'm wrong) - the situation is being grossly misrepresented or misunderstood. Not receiving SMS communications is being conflated with not receiving iMessage communications. The two are used (as intended) for much the same purposes, but are not the same thing at all. In theory, Apple could implement an iMessage stack that used SMS systems as a transport.
When a communication is sent via the iMessaging system to an iMessage account using a phone number as an identifier, but the phone using that number is not capable of receiving iMessages (whether it's because the phone is turned off, or data service is unavailable, or any other reason), then those messages sent referencing that number get queued waiting for any capable device (read: any iPhone, iPad or Mac with access rights to access that iMessages account and which has been also associated with that identifier number) to contact the servers to retrieve the waiting data. This is actually exactly how the system really should function. Actual SMS text messages sent to that number are still sent and received via the SMS backend, which remains separate from the iMessaging system. The interruption (issue) is with the iMessaging service, not the short messaging (a.k.a. "text") service. The argument that Apple (deliberately or unintentionally) interfered with the telecoms SMS delivery system isn't actually true, so I don't see how the judge can say this case has merit based on that.
In particular, the interruption is at the communication origin, not the destination, as the Messages application is attempting to send a communication via the iMessaging system rather than the SMS system as the iMessages backend still has that identifier (phone number) associated with the iMessages account. It therefore concludes that utilizing that delivery system is intended (although disabling iMessaging at the origin should still allow a SMS message to be sent regardless). So the argument that Apple (with or without intent) interfered with the recipient's SMS messaging functionality is also inaccurate, so again, it seems to me (as a legal layman) this basis for the action should be without merit as well.
I don't know if it'd really have any legal legs, but maybe someone could make the case that the Messages application was swallowing communications that one had intended to send as SMS, but that would have to be the sender - the person who still was using the iPhone, not the one who is using another device and didn't receive the message (as they're not using the Messages application).
I might love my Apple products, but I am on the side that Apple screwed up on this one. Yes, they do not guarantee the delivery of messages, but there is an expectation that most of the message will go through.
This is the part I have a problem with - do people mean iMessages or text (SMS) messages when they say this? They're two very different things. Is it reasonable to expect to receive iMessages if you don't have an iDevice?
Your post demonstrates that you are not in a position to decide what's rational and irrational. What does using Apple products longer than everyone have to do with anything?
About as much as bringing up issues with Microsoft.
this lawsuit never should have happened... its asinine. iMessage shouldn't hijack anyone's messages on any platform (even their own). i'm not sure y most ppl think this is OK. seems like sheepish logic to me. i bet if android's hangouts did this ppl commentators above would have a different opinion. it might sound like "look at android maintaining their 85% global dominance."
In this thread: Countless Apple defenders refusing to admit this was a *real* problem.
I've been using Apple products longer than most of you have been alive but even I admit this was a big issue, even if you won't. I have several friends who switched to Android and could not get texts for months. It was not just a "boo hoo" inconvenience, it actually affected their livelihood when they could not be contacted by customers. Apple knew about this problem for years before it implemented a solution. Their attitude was true b*llsh*t on this one and I am glad the judge allowed this to proceed, because they really did wrong here. I cannot fathom why so many of you are belittling what was a true, serious issue.
I'm calling you out: Nobodyy, Maestro64, SpamSandwich, jungmark, Suddenly Newton. You guys are irrational.
I'm older than Apple. Strike one.
It's not Apple's fault your friends went to Android. Strike two.
It's a minor issue. Strike three.
Comments
The nonexistent people who couldn't be proven to exist as there is nothing to show messages weren't received?
If these potential customers came into existence by using other methods to make contact then there is still a chance they will provide money making opportunities.
Damn man.. you still think this is an imaginary issue?!!
This is a statement from Apple confirming this issue months ago:
There was a problem and turning off iMessage before erasing the iPhone did not work for some people since this was a server side bug as well. This was a bug that Apple ignored for long time and just now took the necessary steps to fix it. Just because it didn't happen to you that it didn't exist.
Your post demonstrates that you are not in a position to decide what's rational and irrational. What does using Apple products longer than everyone have to do with anything? You know that's one of the oldest rhetorical arguments in these forums, and it always has the opposite effect that you intended. You'd better come correct if you want to "call me out".
Then they took years to fix it. Open and shut case for negligence.
I think that I should start a lawsuit against the manufacturer of my new car.
It runs on diesel and now I can't tank petrol anymore.....
Also, when I go next on holiday to another country I should start a lawsuit against ALL of the people there if they can't speak English.....
That's how intelligent I am.
I might love my Apple products, but I am on the side that Apple screwed up on this one. Yes, they do not guarantee the delivery of messages, but there is an expectation that most of the message will go through. If we were talking 3-6 months for Apple to come up with the fix, I would agree with everyone saying that this is an ambulance chaser or get over yourself. I could even agree with that if we were talking a year, but we are talking 3 years. That was Apple saying F U to anyone who left, and it was this suit that finally forced them to fix the problem. Yes Apple did finally fix the problem, but the case was already filed. It is kind of like expecting the court to drop the speeding ticket because you slowed down after the cop wrote you up.
But then they'll win it on appeal, citing courtroom irregularities in the first case.
I don’t want to live in a world where business is done by text message.
Brace yourself then because I have some bad news for you... You already live in a world where business is done by text message.
Most 2-step authentication is done via SMS.
If you don't follow instructions on opting out, the iMessage system will still think you are in. Even then, those customers can contact Apple to get the issue resolved. It's only "negligence" if Apple refuses to help. If taking too long to fix problems is your definition of "negligence" then Microsoft is getting off way too easy for the hundreds of unfixed bugs in their applications over the years.
Obviously a problem. Apple placed themselves as an intermediary to a public utility, and didn't have an effective handover strategy which meant a number of people were unable to properly use the public utility.
Then they took years to fix it. Open and shut case for negligence.
To begin, I think at best you can say Apple placed the iMessaging system as an alternative to the SMS system. Apple isn't offering a service that allows you to cross-send SMS messages to iMessage users, or vice-versa. The iMessage system stands on it's own. The Messages application is a multipurpose program that facilitates using both the iMessage as well as SMS backends. Also, is the SMS system actually classified as a public utility? (I ask because I don't know - but it seems unlikely to me.) And from a legal standpoint (no, IANAL) is the concept of negligence even satisfied in this situation?
Here's the problem as I see it (correct me where I'm wrong) - the situation is being grossly misrepresented or misunderstood. Not receiving SMS communications is being conflated with not receiving iMessage communications. The two are used (as intended) for much the same purposes, but are not the same thing at all. In theory, Apple could implement an iMessage stack that used SMS systems as a transport.
When a communication is sent via the iMessaging system to an iMessage account using a phone number as an identifier, but the phone using that number is not capable of receiving iMessages (whether it's because the phone is turned off, or data service is unavailable, or any other reason), then those messages sent referencing that number get queued waiting for any capable device (read: any iPhone, iPad or Mac with access rights to access that iMessages account and which has been also associated with that identifier number) to contact the servers to retrieve the waiting data. This is actually exactly how the system really should function. Actual SMS text messages sent to that number are still sent and received via the SMS backend, which remains separate from the iMessaging system. The interruption (issue) is with the iMessaging service, not the short messaging (a.k.a. "text") service. The argument that Apple (deliberately or unintentionally) interfered with the telecoms SMS delivery system isn't actually true, so I don't see how the judge can say this case has merit based on that.
In particular, the interruption is at the communication origin, not the destination, as the Messages application is attempting to send a communication via the iMessaging system rather than the SMS system as the iMessages backend still has that identifier (phone number) associated with the iMessages account. It therefore concludes that utilizing that delivery system is intended (although disabling iMessaging at the origin should still allow a SMS message to be sent regardless). So the argument that Apple (with or without intent) interfered with the recipient's SMS messaging functionality is also inaccurate, so again, it seems to me (as a legal layman) this basis for the action should be without merit as well.
I don't know if it'd really have any legal legs, but maybe someone could make the case that the Messages application was swallowing communications that one had intended to send as SMS, but that would have to be the sender - the person who still was using the iPhone, not the one who is using another device and didn't receive the message (as they're not using the Messages application).
Maybe I'm wrong on all of this though.
I might love my Apple products, but I am on the side that Apple screwed up on this one. Yes, they do not guarantee the delivery of messages, but there is an expectation that most of the message will go through.
This is the part I have a problem with - do people mean iMessages or text (SMS) messages when they say this? They're two very different things. Is it reasonable to expect to receive iMessages if you don't have an iDevice?
Your post demonstrates that you are not in a position to decide what's rational and irrational. What does using Apple products longer than everyone have to do with anything?
About as much as bringing up issues with Microsoft.
I'm older than Apple. Strike one.
It's not Apple's fault your friends went to Android. Strike two.
It's a minor issue. Strike three.
lesson learned: once you use an iphone, you should stay with iphone.