[Macworld]

Post your comments for Lawsuit alleges false advertising for iPhone 3G here

[nmpike]

Is this a class action that we can get involved with? Normally I would not jump on board, but I am pissed enough about the iPhone crashing all the time, the NO 3G coverage even though we were told we have it in our market, I think I might want to get involved in this if possible.

[danviento]

Class action payments, in terms of cash refunds, not replacements are largely useless to the people seeking them. Payouts are often small, and not worth the time. The only people who really win are the legal teams because of their percentage take of a large lump sum that's divided among hundreds of thousands. Nothing against them, they only score big when they do their job.
In any event, what do you expect to happen by getting back at "the man?" If you really wanted to use the handset as you envisioned it, do you think bleeding apple of resources (though they probably have plenty thanks to that giant VC grant) may not be the fastest path to get them.
As it stands, it is AT&T who is supporting the network and promising such speeds. If anyone is liable for such claims in terms of coverage, (knowing Apple's protectionist legal teams) it's probably going to be Ma Bell. Yes, the handset's interface with the network does play a sizable role in the actual speeds and utilization of network capabilities, but experience with all other types of handsets tells me that coverage is not always going to be the same, and usually worse than the gleaming image that is presented in ads. Anyone with the uncommon common sense, or perhaps a little cynicism, wouldn't throw the adult temper-tantrums that are a lawsuits like these.

[kirkmc]

It seemed to me, from the beginning, that Apple was making a big mistake. Advertising their hardware as being twice as faster (or was it the semantically incorrect 2x faster?), when that speed depends, not on the hardware, but on the network, is suicidal. They are liable for what they advertised, even though they don't provide the access.
Apple should be held liable for their ads; they have gone way too far, such as saying that the iPhone is "half the price" of the previous model: since the phone cannot be purchased without a contract, that is misleading at best.
But, yes, these suits are good only for the lawyers who file them.
Kirk

[Wondercow]

Slightly OT:
What ever happened to the other lawsuits linked in this article?

[SirBrass]

Actually, in an area of full 3G coverage, it probably IS twice as fast. Thus, false advertising claims are bubkiss. If it is AT&T who is at fault for bad coverage then Apple is not liable b/c with full coverage in a full 3G network area the iPhone 3G IS twice as fast. That is what the lady suing for false advertising will have to prove. And I bet that Apple's legal team has their company's rear well covered. So, this suit is a waste of time.
Next unimportant bit of american whining please?

[Wondercow]

kirkmc said:

Apple should be held liable for their ads; they have gone way too far, such as saying that the iPhone is "half the price" of the previous model: since the phone cannot be purchased without a contract, that is misleading at best.

You may find it misleading but that doesn't make the claim false (or misleading, for that matter). You may have had a point if Apple was still revenue-sharing with AT&T but they're not. AT&T sets the length and cost of the contract and Apple sells you the phone. Both are independent of the other.

[kirkmc]

I disagree. Apple is using as a selling point something over which they have no control. Since it's one of their main selling points, they are liable, as it is misleading advertising.

Kirk

[ThePorge]

Haven't all those ads had "fine print" at the bottom basically saying 3G performance based on local coverage or something to that effect?

[ilias]

You are kidding: in areas of good coverage and, I should say, times of lower network congestion (e.g. early morning) it is more like 8x. I am using the iphone in the tristate area (esp NYC and CT). Certainly I get no data bandwidth whatsoever on a sunny Saturday afternoon in Central Park but then this is a complaint for AT&T rather than Apple. This situation is no different from EDGE last year.

By the way, I don't think Mr Trujillo's complaint last year regarding battery life on the first iPhone was any more frivolous than this complaint. It will be done and forgotten. Perhaps Mrs Smith (and the 2% of unhappy users that have persistent problems) will be offered to cancel her contract beyond the 30days as recourse. But class action?

[wase]

I want to sue them too, because I am not happy with the color of my iphone, and I feel they should have more colors..
My God, the mentality of sueing anybody for any reason in this country will be the downfall of us..If someone isn't happy with the performance of a product, what happenned to the good ole' days of just returning the damn thing????
wonder if the person filing the suit is a fricken lawyer???

[MrYmath]

Have you watched their TV ads? The speed with which the iPhone can do stuff can only be achieved..... on the TV ads.

[pcharles]

Since when has real network speed ever been a reflection of the device itself? I have a 10 megabit connection in my office and it is no faster than the 5 megabit trail I have at home. Should I sue my employer?

[macFanDave]

If Apple can show that under ideal conditions that the iPhone 3G performs as advertised, the lawsuit is lost.
No one ever successfully sued carmakers for not getting the EPA mileage attributed to their cars (a few years ago, the EPA changed their methods making the rated mileage high, but not unattainable). In fact, that disparity was so widely known it became a Web abbreviation, YMMV (your mileage may vary). That's a funny use of "vary" because that suggests that the variation could sometimes be ABOVE the nominal figure.
Nice try, lawyers, but get your free lunch elsewhere.