Never said that small time developers get the same support. Apple's developer support surely scales with the size and/or prominence of the developer.
Clearly Apple didn't help design the FuelBand hardware for Nike, and their side of anything Nike related has been limited to iOS app and system support. The press has added a lot more emphasis to this as they look for any bones to pick for article content and clicks.
What I don't understand is why Apple is listed as a defendant here? So they didn't have a hand in the hardware (right?), there's some random quotes about Cook enjoying it, and Apple selling them through stores doesn't seem like enough to place them as liable.
There has to be larger chunks to the story I am missing (or failing to connect) and I think they center around how the device failed to meet the standards set by marketing maybe?
What I don't understand is why Apple is listed as a defendant here? So they didn't have a hand in the hardware (right?), there's some random quotes about Cook enjoying it, and Apple selling them through stores doesn't seem like enough to place them as liable.
There has to be larger chunks to the story I am missing (or failing to connect) and I think they center around how the device failed to meet the standards set by marketing maybe?
Plaintiff's greedy hopes, that's the only reason. Many lawsuits, and the majority of class action lawsuits, are often subject to the same sad human behavior.
Worse is that soft headed judges and juries often swallow sob stories without thinking and lash out at anyone named in a case. So there's an established history for big fat irrational settlements and a huge part of the legal industry dedicated to this kind of parasite behavior.
Plaintiff's greedy hopes, that's the only reason. Many lawsuits, and the majority of class action lawsuits, are often subject to the same sad human behavior.
Worse is that soft headed judges and juries often swallow sob stories without thinking and lash out at anyone named in a case. So there's an established history for big fat irrational settlements and a huge part of the legal industry dedicated to this kind of parasite behavior.
Now, that makes more sense to me. More or less taking advantage of the relationship they had to spread the blame across more parties in hope for a higher payout.
Let's say some sort of "exercising algorithms" (I can't find what was exactly wrong or how wrong, just "inaccurate results") were taking place on the iPhone using pieces (hardware, software) that Apple built that contributed to Nike's failure, things would fall in place easy. That was my ultimate issue with the vagueness in this article, since it hinted at a deeper connection but not supplying details one way or another.
The FuelBand sounds like it is similar to the Nike+ Move app in its inaccuracy. The app says I get more than twice as much exercise taking the exact same hike if my phone is in the side pocket of my utility kilt, as compared to when the phone is in a fanny pack. It’s somewhere in between if the phone is in my front pants pocket. I suspect with the FuelBand, you'd get far more exercise points if you take a walk with arms swinging normally, as compared to the same walk with hands in pockets.
Actually, the lawsuit did have merit because they proved the Nike FuelBand did not do what they claimed it would do. That is why Nike is paying out on it. The jury did not find negligence against Apple, but they found negligence against Nike.
"The lawsuit claims that Nike and Apple engaged in violations of consumer protection laws in connection with the Nike+ FuelBand. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges, among other things, that false and/or misleading statements were made regarding the Nike+ FuelBand’s ability to accurately track calories, steps, and NikeFuel, and that there were breaches of the warranty terms of the Nike+ FuelBand. Nike and Apple deny the claims in the lawsuit and maintain that they did nothing wrong or illegal. The Court has not decided which side is right. " -- from the Settlement Website.
Nothing here about a jury. It's a settlement with neither Apple nor Nike admitting anything. There has been no finding. The language is clear.
Now, perhaps this settlement contents is not accurate -- I presume if those in the class are being offered these settlement terms the Court and plaintiffs have agreed.
Comments
Ditto. :smokey:
What I don't understand is why Apple is listed as a defendant here? So they didn't have a hand in the hardware (right?), there's some random quotes about Cook enjoying it, and Apple selling them through stores doesn't seem like enough to place them as liable.
There has to be larger chunks to the story I am missing (or failing to connect) and I think they center around how the device failed to meet the standards set by marketing maybe?
Plaintiff's greedy hopes, that's the only reason. Many lawsuits, and the majority of class action lawsuits, are often subject to the same sad human behavior.
Worse is that soft headed judges and juries often swallow sob stories without thinking and lash out at anyone named in a case. So there's an established history for big fat irrational settlements and a huge part of the legal industry dedicated to this kind of parasite behavior.
Now, that makes more sense to me. More or less taking advantage of the relationship they had to spread the blame across more parties in hope for a higher payout.
Let's say some sort of "exercising algorithms" (I can't find what was exactly wrong or how wrong, just "inaccurate results") were taking place on the iPhone using pieces (hardware, software) that Apple built that contributed to Nike's failure, things would fall in place easy. That was my ultimate issue with the vagueness in this article, since it hinted at a deeper connection but not supplying details one way or another.
The FuelBand sounds like it is similar to the Nike+ Move app in its inaccuracy. The app says I get more than twice as much exercise taking the exact same hike if my phone is in the side pocket of my utility kilt, as compared to when the phone is in a fanny pack. It’s somewhere in between if the phone is in my front pants pocket. I suspect with the FuelBand, you'd get far more exercise points if you take a walk with arms swinging normally, as compared to the same walk with hands in pockets.
Actually, the lawsuit did have merit because they proved the Nike FuelBand did not do what they claimed it would do. That is why Nike is paying out on it. The jury did not find negligence against Apple, but they found negligence against Nike.
"The lawsuit claims that Nike and Apple engaged in violations of consumer protection laws in connection with the Nike+ FuelBand. More specifically, the lawsuit alleges, among other things, that false and/or misleading statements were made regarding the Nike+ FuelBand’s ability to accurately track calories, steps, and NikeFuel, and that there were breaches of the warranty terms of the Nike+ FuelBand. Nike and Apple deny the claims in the lawsuit and maintain that they did nothing wrong or illegal. The Court has not decided which side is right. " -- from the Settlement Website.
Nothing here about a jury. It's a settlement with neither Apple nor Nike admitting anything. There has been no finding. The language is clear.
Now, perhaps this settlement contents is not accurate -- I presume if those in the class are being offered these settlement terms the Court and plaintiffs have agreed.