V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,786 Posts
I still use the two tin cans and a string system. Not very good for long distance and doesn't work in a moving vehicle, but it's free.
 

·
05 Flhrci
Joined
·
135 Posts
I hope Apple wins. The case is stupid. That's like sueing Sony for not allowing a Play Station game to be played on Xbox.

I wish I could be on some of these juries.

My -2$en#e- worth

Jim
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,293 Posts
Cmotorcycles said:
I hope Apple wins. The case is stupid. That's like sueing Sony for not allowing a Play Station game to be played on Xbox.

I wish I could be on some of these juries.

My -2$en#e- worth

Jim
And in the mean time, since Apple has to defend itself against this, the cost will be passed along to the consumers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
594 Posts
There has to be a limit on what control companies have on there products once we have brought them and want to use them in our own ways. When buying a product you shouldnt be tied into only using services provided by that company. In the world of free enterprise, its just a step towards monopoly. How many of you guys are on an IBM computer with IBM software?

If Harley made is so you could only use Harley sold parts or use Harley for all servicing or the bike would be shut down and made not usable, I bet that would be considered a crime in most Harley owners eyes. Theres enough complaints about the loss of warrenty with amsol or non approved oil on this site.

Hope Apple goes down in an expensive flaming wreck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,069 Posts
3twins said:
There has to be a limit on what control companies have on there products once we have brought them and want to use them in our own ways. When buying a product you shouldnt be tied into only using services provided by that company. In the world of free enterprise, its just a step towards monopoly. How many of you guys are on an IBM computer with IBM software?

If Harley made is so you could only use Harley sold parts or use Harley for all servicing or the bike would be shut down and made not usable, I bet that would be considered a crime in most Harley owners eyes. Theres enough complaints about the loss of warrenty with amsol or non approved oil on this site.

Hope Apple goes down in an expensive flaming wreck.
I agree with you. Apple deserved to lose this lawsuit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
3twins said:
There has to be a limit on what control companies have on there products once we have brought them and want to use them in our own ways. When buying a product you shouldnt be tied into only using services provided by that company. In the world of free enterprise, its just a step towards monopoly. How many of you guys are on an IBM computer with IBM software?

If Harley made is so you could only use Harley sold parts or use Harley for all servicing or the bike would be shut down and made not usable, I bet that would be considered a crime in most Harley owners eyes. Theres enough complaints about the loss of warrenty with amsol or non approved oil on this site.

Hope Apple goes down in an expensive flaming wreck.
Apple is in a lose-lose situation, people want to hack it so they use it with a different provider and they expect Apple to help them for free when they screw it up. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 

·
Opinions Vary
Joined
·
161 Posts
sthorp said:
*snip*they expect Apple to help them for free when they screw it up. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Actually - the people didn't screw it up at all - Apple did.
By FORCING a firmware update that had marginal and questionable improvements to what have been termed "unseen in the field" failures.
(in other words - there are references to the problems the upgrade was supposed to fix, that say such failures never occurred outside AppleLabs)

Funny how the firmware update bricked all the units using a half-dozen various hacks freely available? Not really funny - and certainly unlikely - that a simple firmware update would kill all the available hacks out there??

It's a case of someone selling a toaster, and saying you can't put wheat bread in - only WonderWhite.

Personally - I think they have a case.
But I wouldn't take it to court personally.
I'd wait a few more weeks and someone will come up with an unbricking utility and a firmware locker that will work just fine :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
toProFile said:
Actually - the people didn't screw it up at all - Apple did.
By FORCING a firmware update that had marginal and questionable improvements to what have been termed "unseen in the field" failures.
(in other words - there are references to the problems the upgrade was supposed to fix, that say such failures never occurred outside AppleLabs)

Funny how the firmware update bricked all the units using a half-dozen various hacks freely available? Not really funny - and certainly unlikely - that a simple firmware update would kill all the available hacks out there??

It's a case of someone selling a toaster, and saying you can't put wheat bread in - only WonderWhite.

Personally - I think they have a case.
But I wouldn't take it to court personally.
I'd wait a few more weeks and someone will come up with an unbricking utility and a firmware locker that will work just fine :D
Apple didn't screw up anything, they are attempting to defeat hacking of their product, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Everyone that purchased an IPhone knew damn well before they even bought it that it was designed to work only with AT&T, then complain and sue. It's very unreasonable to complain about AT&T usage only when everything was up front and open before a purchase was made, you don't like being tied to AT&T service then don't buy an IPhone.
 

·
05 Flhrci
Joined
·
135 Posts
sthorp said:
Apple didn't screw up anything, they are attempting to defeat hacking of their product, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Everyone that purchased an IPhone knew damn well before they even bought it that it was designed to work only with AT&T, then complain and sue. It's very unreasonable to complain about AT&T usage only when everything was up front and open before a purchase was made, you don't like being tied to AT&T service then don't buy an IPhone.
@gree:

They shouldn't be able to sue if they knew the deal up front.
 

·
Opinions Vary
Joined
·
161 Posts
sthorp said:
Apple didn't screw up anything, they are attempting to defeat hacking of their product, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
Ummm - Okay - I see your point.
The EPA and Harley feel the same way about their product(recent releases)

So - if your scoot just 'bricks' down the road yer okay with that, cause your not using all EPA parts and Harley service?? It's okay that a product you purchased won't function cause you altered a part on the product YOU PURCHASED?

Yeah - right - BULLSHAIT!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
ditto

Cmotorcycles said:
@gree:

They shouldn't be able to sue if they knew the deal up front.
I have an IPhone and love it but would prefer to have it verizon based. In fact if apple wanted to be really innovative they would have made it so it works on ANY network at ANY time which ever is the best signal at that time. But I knew this when I bought it so it is what it is!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,037 Posts
I actually read the complaint.

1. Question: does apple have the right or ability to make their product usable with ONLY ATT? If in fact they clearly notify the purchaser that that is so? I would say that when the dust settles Apple will win on that count.

The apple computer up until recently would only run apple based software and all if not most of your PC/Dos based software was useless. No-one litigated against this and that was a way more bigger issue.

2. Question: Does apple and ATT have the right to enter into an exclusive agreement? Generally I would say YES but does this in fact step over the line of becoming a monopoly? And does it violate any FCC rules? There may be some question here.

Now if Apple can prove that ATT shared in the development costs of the IPhone and they are now only sharing in their investment, the scale now weighs more to the Apple/ATT position.

The really F'ed up part of this is that IF the plaintive wins only one dollar per person in the class the lawyer gets 1/3 of that dollar. I was once in a class (not wanting to be) and I got $50 (big whoop) and the lawyers shared in over 20 million. All a class action lawyer has to do is get one or two lead named defendants, and prove there is a possible action and there is a class and then even if he settles cheaply out of court, he gets 1/3 of the class. Who do you think ginned up this?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
148 Posts
roofeditor said:
1. Question: does apple have the right or ability to make their product usable with ONLY ATT? If in fact they clearly notify the purchaser that that is so? I would say that when the dust settles Apple will win on that count.

The apple computer up until recently would only run apple based software and all if not most of your PC/Dos based software was useless. No-one litigated against this and that was a way more bigger issue.

2. Question: Does apple and ATT have the right to enter into an exclusive agreement? Generally I would say YES but does this in fact step over the line of becoming a monopoly? And does it violate any FCC rules? There may be some question here.

Now if Apple can prove that ATT shared in the development costs of the IPhone and they are now only sharing in their investment, the scale now weighs more to the Apple/ATT position.

The really F'ed up part of this is that IF the plaintive wins only one dollar per person in the class the lawyer gets 1/3 of that dollar. I was once in a class (not wanting to be) and I got $50 (big whoop) and the lawyers shared in over 20 million. All a class action lawyer has to do is get one or two lead named defendants, and prove there is a possible action and there is a class and then even if he settles cheaply out of court, he gets 1/3 of the class. Who do you think ginned up this?
@gree: Absolutely 100% on the mark. :thumbsup:
 

·
Doof Bag
Joined
·
274 Posts
Personally - I think they have a case.
But I wouldn't take it to court personally.
I'd wait a few more weeks and someone will come up with an unbricking utility and a firmware locker that will work just fine :D[/QUOTE]

Even better, wait 90 days til LG or Motorolla comes out with the next "big thang" and no one can remember why they wanted one of those fuggin Iphone things in the first place.
 

·
Noch ein bier, bitte
Joined
·
1,537 Posts
Seems to me Apple products have always had a proprietary aspect to them.

They want total control. That attitude is the primary reason why there isn't an Apple computer on every desktop. Better op system, better engineering, but a closed up market...proprietary as hell.

Been going on for over 30 years now so anyone buying an apple product should understand that by now. Sometimes Apple is their own worst enemy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
Seems to me a monopoly is not the issue here. ATT may have a monopoly on iPhones, but that is just a brand of cell phone. It doesn't mean you cannot get cellular service somewhere else, just using an iPhone.

Currently, I have several older cell phones from several years of use. Each of those phones is proprietary to the company I purchased the service from. For instance, I'm currently using G'z One cell phone. It has "Verizon" printed right on the phone. Now, if I hack that phone and use it with another service, I really cannot complain if Verizon/G'z One sends me an "update" that bricks the phone, do I? I mean that is exactly what is going on here, isn't it? Or am I missing something?

Using the HD analogy:
If I update my Harley cams with Andrews cams, after HD specifically tells me Andrews cam won't work (even if Andrews swears that they do), especially if they tell me this BEFORE I buy the bike, I really don't have a leg to stand on if the bike bricks on me runnin' down the expressway, now, do I?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
3twins said:
How many of you guys are on an IBM computer with IBM software?
True, but how many of you have an apple computer running apple software? Of course you do, because, as the big cheese said, it's been apple's modus operundi from day one to try to keep control of every component that comes in contact with their apple logo on it. IMO, they are simply in trouble this time for "lying". Their statement of "fact" about damage to the phone if you unlocked it turned out to be a lie. Either it IS damaged or it ISN'T, regardless of what your definiton of "is" is.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
40 Posts
sthorp said:
Apple didn't screw up anything, they are attempting to defeat hacking of their product, and I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Everyone that purchased an IPhone knew damn well before they even bought it that it was designed to work only with AT&T, then complain and sue. It's very unreasonable to complain about AT&T usage only when everything was up front and open before a purchase was made, you don't like being tied to AT&T service then don't buy an IPhone.
I somewhat disagree. What does Apple care about their product being hacked? The overpriced POS has already been purchased and Apple has been paid! What I do agree with is that you don't buy a Ford Focus then sue because it can't out run a Charger. If people weren't so ignorant, and have to have the "latest and greatest" then Apple would be F'ed because anyone with sense would've said F'em if I can't use any other service. The people who paid the original price should slap themselves for having to rush out and get one just to say they were the first.

Double D-Out!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
I thought the firmware update also broke Third party vendor apps.

If so, I'd be more pissed about this than it bricking a phone that was hacked.

Of course, people have been hacking hardware since electronics were invented. I don't recall any other vendors issuing Firmwares to break hacked products.

If I was Apple, I'd be happy someone made it work with other vendors... that's that many more they may sell, however, it sounds to me like AT&T feels someone pissed in their cheerios, and they're probably the ones pressuring Apple to do something about it.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top